- 5 -
Respondent argues that petitioner and her children did not
satisfy the residency requirement because petitioner was held in
jail for the rest of the year after her arrest on June 5.
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that she and her children
satisfied the residency requirement. Petitioner asserts that she
resided with her children in 2002, first at the Marcum Lane home
and then at her mother-in-law’s home. She argues that her
mother-in-law’s home was the residence for her and her children
from the day they moved there through the rest of the year.
Petitioner essentially asserts that, although she was arrested on
June 5 and held in jail for the remainder of the year, her
absence was temporary. We agree with petitioner.
A. The “Same Principal Place of Abode” Test
We now examine the residency requirement that a taxpayer and
his or her children must share the “same principal place of
abode” for more than half the year for which the EIC is claimed.
We also consider what types of absences from the home are
permitted while still allowing the home to qualify as the
principal place of abode. Sec. 32(c)(3).
The phrase “same principal place of abode” is not defined in
section 32 or the regulations under that section. The
legislative history of section 32, however, provides some
guidance on the meaning of this phrase, and, specifically, how
Congress intended absences from the home to be treated. Congress
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011