- 3 -
because of illness. Consequently, during 2003, petitioner paid
the full costs of supporting S.L.B., including the costs of
housing, clothing, food, personal hygiene, transportation, and
school supplies.3
Discussion
Petitioner contends that he and Ernestine Bethel entered
into a common law marriage before 2003 and, consequently, that
S.L.B. was his stepchild during 2003. Accordingly, petitioner
contends that he is entitled to a dependency exemption, head-of-
household filing status, and an earned income tax credit.4
We first address the alleged common law marriage of
Ernestine Bethel and petitioner.5 South Carolina recognizes the
common law marriage of two parties who contract to be married.
Callen v. Callen, 620 S.E.2d 59, 62 (S.C. 2005). Such an
agreement may be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Id.
In Callen, the South Carolina Supreme Court stated that the “fact
finder is to look for mutual assent: the intent of each party to
be married to the other and a mutual understanding of each
3Although S.L.B. remained on the health plan of Ernestine
Bethel, S.L.B. does not appear to have incurred any health-
related expenses during 2003.
4We decide the instant case on the record without regard to
the burden of proof and sec. 7491.
5Petitioner does not contend and has offered no evidence
that he is S.L.B.’s biological father, her adoptive father, her
stepfather, or her foster parent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011