- 10 -
(8) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law of the
taxpayer, or
(9) An individual * * * who, for the taxable year of
the taxpayer, has as his principal place of abode the
home of the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s
household.
Peter Wuol testified that he and petitioner were not related
by blood, but Peter Wuol would refer to petitioner as “my
brother”. Although Peter Wuol believed that he and petitioner
were related as brothers because they were from the same “family”
and thus, Peter Wuol’s children were petitioner’s nephews, Peter
Wuol admitted that he and petitioner had neither the same father
nor the same mother.
Having a relative in common, by marriage, as in the instant
case, does not necessarily warrant a finding that petitioner and
Peter Wuol are related within the meaning of section 152. See
Barbetti v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 1097, 1098 (1947)(noting that
Congress chose only those relationships in section 25(b)(3),
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, as “being sufficiently
within the family orbit to warrant a dependency allowance.”).10
Petitioner and Peter Wuol are not considered half brothers
10 The relationships described in sec. 25(b)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended and in effect for the
taxable years 1944 and 1945 relevant in Barbetti v. Commissioner,
9 T.C. 1097 (1947), are the same as those described in sec.
152(a)(1)-(8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011