Nasser and Scottiann Zamani - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          1.   Petitioner Was Not the Custodial Parent in 2003                        
               Petitioner and Ms. Woodworth share custody of Nathan and               
          Lila; however, the divorce decree indicates that Ms. Woodworth              
          has custody for the greater portion of the calendar year.                   
          Accordingly, Ms. Woodworth was the custodial parent for purposes            
          of section 152(e).  See sec. 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs.                   
               Petitioner credibly testified that Nathan and Lila often               
          spent time in his home in addition to the visits specified in the           
          divorce decree.  Petitioner estimated that each child lived with            
          him and his wife for approximately 5 to 6 months in 2003, with              
          the remainder of the time spent at Ms. Woodworth’s residence.               
          Petitioner conceded, however, that his estimates were “very                 
          approximate” because he did not have “a clear record [of]  * * *            
          how many days [or] which days” the children spent with him.                 
               Assuming arguendo that the divorce decree does not establish           
          Ms. Woodworth as the custodial parent, petitioner has not                   
          demonstrated that he was the custodial parent in 2003.                      
          Petitioner introduced no records to support his estimates and               
          acknowledged he could not remember exactly how much time his                
          children spent with him in 2003.  Even if we accepted the                   
          accuracy of petitioner’s estimates, the time Nathan and Lila                
          spent with him would not constitute “a greater portion of the               
          calendar year”.  Sec. 152(e)(1) (flush language).  We therefore             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011