- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011