McLu Buah and Peter Buah - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
          issues for decision are whether Mrs. Buah is entitled to an                 
          earned income credit, whether she qualifies as a head of                    
          household, and whether she is entitled to a standard deduction              
          for the years in issue.                                                     
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of facts and the attached exhibits, as well as             
          additional exhibits introduced at trial, are incorporated herein            
          by this reference.                                                          
               Petitioners resided in Woodbridge, Virginia, when the                  
          petitions were filed.  Petitioners were married sometime before             
          2002 and remained married at the time of trial.  They have two              
          children, DB and GB.3                                                       
               During part or all of the years at issue, Mr. Buah worked              
          for Landmark Honda as a salesman and for National Delivery                  
          Service as a newspaper deliveryman.  Mrs. Buah worked as a                  
          hairdresser.  Petitioners purchased a house together in June                
          2003.  On a loan application dated June 13, 2003, petitioners               
          indicated they had been living together for the past 3 years.               
               Although petitioners had previously filed joint Federal                
          income tax returns, they filed separate returns for 2002 and                
          2003.  On his 2002 return, Mr. Buah claimed itemized deductions             


               3 Because it appears the children are minors, the Court uses           
          only their initials.                                                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007