- 23 -
GOEKE, J., concurring: I concur in the result reached by the
adopted opinion. I write separately to emphasize the very
limited nature of the holding reached today. That is, where a
taxpayer is involuntarily removed from her principal place of
abode and has not manifested any intent to change that abode, her
absence shall be considered temporary for purposes of eligibility
for the earned income credit. See Hein v. Commissioner, 28 T.C.
826, 835 (1957).
We do not adopt a general intent test that would be
inconsistent with the reasonableness of return test of section
1.2-2(c)(1) of the income tax regulations.1 In evaluating
whether an absence was temporary for purposes of head of
household status, this Court in Hein recognized that special
circumstances exist whereby a taxpayer (or dependent) never
intending to change homes has been involuntarily removed from the
home and confined to a separate location. Despite a regulation2
requiring an analysis of whether it was reasonable to assume the
dependent would return home, we held that the possibility of the
dependent’s absence becoming permanent, by the dependent’s
1 The legislative history to the earned income credit (EIC)
indicates Congress’s intent that we are to apply rules similar to
those applied in determining head of household status when
determining whether the residency requirements of the EIC have
been met. H. Conf. Rept. 101-694, at 1037 (1990), 1991-2 C.B.
560, 564.
2 The regulation at issue was the predecessor to sec. 1.2-
2(c)(1) at sec. 39.12-4(c) of Regulations 118 under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1939.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011