Richard A. Mullen - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
          any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as                    
               Respondent determined a $1,997.40 deficiency in petitioner’s           
          2003 Federal income tax.  The issues for decision are:  (1)                 
          Whether petitioner qualifies as a head of household, and (2)                
          whether petitioner is entitled to treat either of his children as           
          a qualified child for purposes of the earned income credit.1                
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.  At           
          the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Shelburne            
          Falls, Massachusetts.                                                       
               Petitioner and Lisa Marie DiBiccari (Ms. DiBiccari) married            
          on June 29, 1991.  They have two children, both of whom were                
          minors during the year in issue (the children).                             
               In June 2002 petitioner, as the tenant, entered into a lease           
          covering a large house, identified and referred to in the lease             
          as “the premises”.  Apparently, petitioner and the landlord who             
          owned the house were involved in a personal relationship.  The              
          lease provides for a specific amount of rent petitioner was                 

               1 Respondent’s pretrial memorandum indicates that                      
          petitioner’s entitlement to the child tax credit is also in                 
          dispute.  A careful review of the notice of deficiency, however,            
          shows that petitioner was allowed a greater child tax credit than           
          claimed on his return.  The additional child tax credit claimed             
          on petitioner’s return was, contrary to a discussion on the point           
          during trial, disallowed.  The disallowance of the additional               
          child tax credit is computational and need not be addressed in              
          this opinion.                                                               

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011