Untayia L. Chizer - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          that for 2003 petitioner paid a “portion” of her brother’s                  
          support and provided him “a place of residence”.  Petitioner also           
          sent with the letter evidence that CC was enrolled in the Lane              
          School during part of “grading period 5” and all of “grading                
          period 6”.                                                                  
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and            
          generally taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise.2  Rule            
          142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                    
          Dependency Exemption                                                        
               Petitioner claimed deductions for two dependency exemptions            
          for 2003 which respondent disallowed in the notice of deficiency.           
          Section 151(c)(1) allows a taxpayer to deduct an exemption amount           
          for each qualifying “dependent” whose income is under the                   
          exemption amount.  A “dependent” means certain individuals,                 
          including a brother, over half of whose support for the year was            
          received from or is treated as received from the taxpayer.  Sec.            
          152(a).                                                                     
               To qualify for a dependency exemption deduction, a taxpayer            
          must establish the total support cost expended on behalf of a               
          claimed dependent from all sources for the year and demonstrate             


               2Petitioner has not raised the issue of sec. 7491(a), which            
          shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner in certain                   
          situations.  The Court concludes that sec. 7491 does not apply              
          here because petitioner has not produced any evidence that                  
          establishes the preconditions for its application.                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011