- 27 -
leave to submit the case without a trial on the basis of the
pleadings, pretrial memoranda, and the stipulation of facts. We
have no briefs. The pretrial memoranda are uninformative of the
issues dividing the Court. The only relevant portion of
respondent’s memorandum is as follows:
Respondent’s position is that sharing of the same
principal place of abode requires that a “qualifying
child” live with the taxpayer for more than one-half of
the taxable year. The test is a “simple residence
test” that based eligibility on whether the taxpayer
lived with her child for more than six months of the
taxable year. Sherbo v. Commissioner, 255 F.3d 650,
654-655 (8th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner, who is pro se, fails to address the issues at all.
Before proceeding any further, I would ask the parties for
briefs. The Court not having done so, I set forth my
disagreements with the principal and concurring opinions.
II. Discussion
A. The Same Principal Place of Abode
The principal question before us is whether petitioner is
eligible for the earned income credit allowed by section 32. The
answer depends on whether petitioner and her two children had the
same “principal place of abode” for at least 6 months of 2002.
Sec. 32(c)(3)(A)(ii). Petitioner was arrested on June 5, 2002,
and held in the Lane County, Oregon, jail until April 26, 2003,
when she was convicted of murder and remanded to State custody to
serve a life sentence.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011