Cyrus Bartholomew Dazzel - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          that he is entitled to any claimed deductions.  New Colonial Ice            
          Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).  This includes the              
          burden of substantiation.  Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87,            
          89-90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).                
          Although section 7491 may shift the burden of proof to respondent           
          in specified circumstances, petitioner here has not established             
          that he meets the prerequisites under section 7491(a)(1) and (2)            
          for such a shift.                                                           
          I.  Dependency Exemptions                                                   
              In general, a taxpayer is allowed as a deduction an exemption           
          for every dependent.  Sec. 151(a),(c).  A child of a taxpayer is            
          a dependent if the requirements of section 151(c)(1) are met, and           
          the taxpayer contributed over one-half of the support for the               
          child during the taxable year.  Sec. 152(a).  Accordingly, the              
          first issue for discussion is whether MS and YS meet the                    
          requirements under section 151 entitling the petitioner to the              
          claimed dependency deductions.                                              
              Both petitioner and Ms. Starks share a belief that petitioner           
          is the biological parent of MS and YS.  Petitioner testified that           
          the children lived with him in Orange, New Jersey, in 2003 when             
          they were not otherwise staying with Ms. Starks in her maternal             
          home in Brooklyn, New York.  At trial, Ms. Starks testified that            
          she, MS, and YS resided apart from petitioner in Brooklyn, New              
          York.  Petitioner asserts that his claimed exemptions for MS and            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011