- 5 -
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that:
(1) Petitioner does not qualify for head-of-household filing
status, and (2) petitioner is not entitled an earned income
credit.
Petitioner argues that she is entitled to head-of-household
filing status and entitled to claim an earned income credit
because she maintained a home that was her daughter’s principal
place of abode, and because sections 2(b) and 32(a) allow for a
qualifying child’s temporary absence from the home when the child
attends an educational institution.
Discussion
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers
must maintain adequate records to substantiate the amounts of any
deductions or credits claimed. Sec. 6001; INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income
Tax Regs. Taxpayers generally bear the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations are incorrect. See Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The burden as to a
factual issue relevant to the liability for tax may shift to the
Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence and
3(...continued)
record does not establish that petitioner has satisfied the
support test of sec. 152(e)(1)(A). Since petitioner’s parents
provided support (food and shelter) for RW during the school
year, petitioner has not established the total amount of support
for RW. See Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514 (1971);
Haywood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-258.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011