Cynthia L. Rowe - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          return clause contained in one of them--at least in the case of             
          absences due to extended illness.  I believe the fair reading of            
          Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, is that the Commissioner decided, in the            
          case of absences due to extended illness, to apply the Hein test            
          of intent and give little or no weight to any reasonable                    
          assumption of return, whether for purposes of the dependency                
          exemption regulations or the head of household regulations.                 
               Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, has stood unmodified for more than             
          40 years and is now recognized by Congress as part of the present           
          law defining eligibility for the dependency exemption, head of              
          household filing status, and the earned income credit (the rules            
          for which incorporate the head of household standards).  For                
          example, the description of the present law concerning the                  
          dependency exemption contained in H. Conf. Rept. 108-696, at 56             
          (2004), states:                                                             
               A taxpayer or other individual does not fail to be                     
               considered a member of a household because of                          
               "temporary" absences due to special circumstances,                     
               including absences due to illness, education, business,                
               vacation, and military service. * * * Indefinite                       
               absences that last for more than the taxable year may                  
               be considered "temporary".  For example, the IRS has                   
               ruled that an elderly woman who was indefinitely                       
               confined to a nursing home was temporarily absent from                 
               a taxpayer's household.  Under the facts of the ruling,                
               the woman had been an occupant of the household before                 
               being confined to a nursing home, the confinement had                  
               extended for several years, and it was possible that                   
               the woman would die before becoming well enough to                     
               return to the taxpayer's household.  There was no                      
               intent on the part of the taxpayer or the woman to                     
               change her principal place of abode. 42                                

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011