Cynthia L. Rowe - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
               intervene before the dependent returns to the                          
               taxpayer's household is not sufficient to make such                    
               absence permanent. [1966-1 C.B. at 32.]                                
          The Commissioner in Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, thus eschewed                   
          reliance on any reasonable assumption of return standard in the             
          case of absences due to extended illness and instead emphasized             
          the absence of intent on the part of the taxpayer or dependent to           
          change the dependent's place of abode.                                      
               As the dissenting opinion points out, the “temporary absence           
          due to special circumstances” provisions in the head of household           
          regulations addressed in Hein contain the requirement that it be            
          “reasonable to assume that the [absent] taxpayer or * * * [absent           
          occupant of the taxpayer's household] will return to the                    
          household”, whereas the “temporary absence due to special                   
          circumstances” provisions in the dependency exemption regulations           
          construed in Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, contain no such provision.             
          The dissenting opinion argues that this distinguishes Rev. Rul.             
          66-28, supra, from the instant case, which involves the head of             
          household regulations.  I disagree.  There is no indication in              
          Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, that the Commissioner was seeking to                
          distinguish the rules applicable to temporary absences due to               
          illness in the case of the dependency exemption regulations                 
          versus the head of household regulations.  To the contrary, the             
          ruling characterizes the two regulations as “identical”, thereby            
          minimizing the significance of the reasonable assumption of                 






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011