- 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