- 9 -
more than 60 miles apart, thus making the possibility of a daily
commute to and from school in excess of 2 hours highly
improbable. Accordingly, we find that A.O.N. resided with
petitioner for the greater portion of the year in issue, and that
petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the dependency exemption
deduction pursuant to section 152(e)(1) with respect to A.O.N.
With respect to A.V.N., petitioner admits that he was not
the custodial parent of her in 2003. Moreover, although
petitioner did provide support for A.V.N. during the year in
issue of $26 per week, in addition to those incidental costs that
he incurred in providing for the child’s needs during visitation
times, he did not either provide substantiation for these amounts
or show the total amount of support provided to the child as
required under section 152. See sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income
Tax Regs.
With respect to petitioner’s argument that he was
unequivocally entitled to claim the dependency exemption
deduction for A.V.N. based on the language in the aforementioned
Order, the law is clear that State courts, by their decisions,
cannot determine issues of Federal tax law. See Commissioner v.
Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 288 (1946).
Finally, petitioner did not attach a Form 8332 pertaining to
A.V.N. to his 2003 return. His argument that the H&R Block
office that assisted him in the preparation of his 2003 return
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008