- 4 -
take the child to work with her at the YMCA. If the child was
not with Ms. Carmicle, petitioner would watch BMB after he
returned home from work in the early morning.
In early 2004, petitioner and Ms. Carmicle resided in a one-
bedroom apartment in Fairborn, Ohio. On December 28, 2004,
petitioner and Ms. Carmicle had their first child. Around this
time, petitioner and Ms. Carmicle moved to a new residence in
Miamisburg, Ohio.
On his 2004 tax return, petitioner claimed a dependency
exemption deduction, an earned income credit, and both a child
tax credit and an additional child tax credit with respect to
BMB. Respondent disallowed the dependency exemption deduction
claimed by petitioner because petitioner did not show that he
provided over half of the support for BMB or that BMB resided
with him for over one-half of the year. As a result of the
disallowance, respondent further disallowed both the claimed
earned income credit and child care credits.
Discussion
In general, the Commissioner’s determination set forth in a
notice of deficiency is presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1)
provides the general rule that “The burden of proof shall be upon
the petitioner”. In certain circumstances, however, if the
taxpayer provides credible evidence with respect to any factual
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011