- 8 -
some point in the future, it was not intended by the parties to
function as a substitute for the waiver itself and, regardless of
intent, is not sufficient to serve that purpose. See Brissett v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-310.
Because the consent order does not meet the requirements of
section 152(e)(2) and the applicable regulation, it does not
qualify as an effective release of Clark’s entitlement to claim
the dependency exemption for the child. Because petitioners are
not entitled to claim the child as a dependent for Federal income
tax purposes, they do not satisfy the “qualifying child”
requirements of the child tax credit under section 24 with
respect to the child and are not entitled to the child tax credit
claimed with respect to that child for the year in issue. See
sec. 24(c)(1); Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-163.
Because of respondent’s concession that petitioners may
claim dependency exemption deductions and associated child tax
credits with respect to petitioners’ other three children,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: March 27, 2008