- 10 -
issue. Id. at 828. In finding that the taxpayer and Emilie had
the same principal place of abode, we focused on the taxpayer’s
and Emilie’s intent that Emilie would return to the taxpayer’s
home if she were released. Id. at 834-835. Moreover, even
though it was unlikely that Emilie would ever recover her health
and leave the facility, we emphasized that there were no
indications that Emilie had chosen a new permanent habitation.
Id.
We apply the factors we set forth in Hein to the
circumstances here and conclude that it was reasonable to assume
petitioner would return to her home with her children. The
criminal case against petitioner was still pending at the end of
2002 and she had not been convicted. As in Hein, there are no
indications in the record that petitioner intended to choose a
new home. See id. In fact, petitioner refers to her mother-in-
law’s home as “my home” in documents she filed with the Court.
We decline to assess objectively the strength of the
criminal charges against petitioner or require petitioner to show
the weakness of the charges against her to determine whether it
was reasonable to assume she would return to her home. Such an
analysis would require us to assess the strengths and weaknesses
of the criminal case against petitioner. In addition, we would
have to consider other factors such as petitioner’s financial
status and assets to estimate whether she could have made bail,
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