- 3 -
The judgment specifically provides the following: (1)
Primary physical custody of both children is to be with Ms.
Madrigal; (2) Mr. Crane will provide medical insurance for both
children; (3) Ms. Madrigal will have the personal exemption for
purposes of her State and Federal income tax reports for child
P.M.; and (4) if, and only if, Mr. Crane is current in his child
support at the end of the year in issue, he will receive the
personal dependency exemption on his State and Federal income tax
returns for child K.M. In addition, the judgment provides that
Mr. Crane’s visitation with both children will consist only of
alternate weekends, 2 noncontinuous weeks in the summer,
alternating Federal and religious holidays, and Father’s Day.
During the taxable year in issue, K.M. resided with Ms.
Madrigal. Mr. Crane had visitation with K.M. only on alternating
weekends, holidays, and Father’s Day during 2002.
Petitioners paid $5,458 in child support to Ms. Madrigal
between January 7 and December 30, 2002. This payment comports
with the amount that Mr. Crane was ordered to pay in the
underlying judgment.
On their 2002 Federal income tax return, petitioners claimed
dependency exemption deductions and a child tax credit with
respect to and for K.M. and another minor child, J.W. In the
notice of deficiency, respondent explained that he was
disallowing petitioners’ claimed exemption for K.M. on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007