- 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