Nathaniel A. McCullough, Jr. - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
               On August 16, 2004, petitioner timely petitioned this Court            
          for redetermination of the deficiency.                                      
                                     Discussion2                                      
          1.   Head of Household                                                      
               Petitioner filed his 2003 Federal income tax return as a               
          head of household, and respondent changed the filing status to              
          single in the notice of deficiency.                                         
               Section 1(b) imposes a special income tax rate on an                   
          individual filing as head of household.  Section 2(b) provides              
          the requirements for head of household filing status.  As                   
          relevant here, to qualify as a head of a household a taxpayer               
          must (a) be unmarried at the end of the taxable year, (b) not be            
          a surviving spouse, and (c) maintain as the taxpayer’s home a               
          household that constitutes the principal place of abode of an               
          unmarried son or daughter.  Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i).                             
               Section 2(b)(1) clearly states that “an individual shall be            
          considered a head of a household if, and only if, such individual           
          is not married at the close of his taxable year”.  The record of            
          the present case is clear that petitioner was married to Ms.                
          Godley at the close of taxable year 2003.  It follows, therefore,           
          that petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing                 


          2We decide the issues in this case without regard to the                    
          burden of proof.  Accordingly, we need not decide whether the               
          general rule of sec. 7491(a)(1) is applicable in this case.  See            
          Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001).                                




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011