- 10 -
supra, met all of the requirements of a written declaration under
section 152(e)(2) because it conformed in substance to Form 8332.
Unlike the divorce agreement in Boltinghouse v.
Commissioner, supra, the Judgment at issue is conditional; that
is, petitioner is entitled to claim the exemptions for A.K. and
M.K. only if he is current in his child support obligations and,
with respect to M.K. only, it is an even year. This condition
creates the question of whether or not petitioner would be
entitled to claim the dependency exemptions depending upon his
compliance with his support obligations. This condition suggests
that petitioner’s compliance with his support obligations may
change from year to year, such that petitioner’s entitlement to
the dependency exemption for A.K. and M.K. (in even years) is
subject to change each year. As such, the order does not conform
in substance to Form 8332 because it fails to state with
specificity the applicable tax year or years for which petitioner
is entitled to claim the exemptions. Therefore, we find that the
Judgment does not constitute a written declaration under section
152(e)(2).
With respect to the child tax credits petitioner claimed for
A.K. and M.K. for taxable year 2004, section 24(a) authorizes a
child tax credit with respect to each qualifying child of the
taxpayer. The term “qualifying child” is defined in section
24(c). A “qualifying child” means an individual with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008