Albert Anderson - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               The $2,406 deficiency arises from respondent’s disallowance            
          of the earned income credit of the same amount.  The amount of              
          the deficiency appears to be unaffected by respondent’s changing            
          petitioner’s filing status; consequently, we need not address               
          that issue.1  See LTV Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 589, 594-595           
          (1975); Cohen v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 647, 648 (1930).                   
          Similarly, respondent’s disallowance of the dependency exemption            
          deduction for petitioner’s son does not appear to affect directly           
          the amount of the deficiency.  As discussed below, however, the             
          dependency issue is relevant in assessing petitioner’s                      
          entitlement to the earned income credit.  For that reason, we               
          address the dependency issue before considering petitioner’s                
          entitlement to the earned income credit.                                    
          1.   Dependency Exemption Deduction                                         
               A taxpayer is allowed a dependency exemption deduction for             
          each dependent.  Sec. 151(c)(1).  To qualify as the taxpayer’s              
          dependent, an individual must, among other things, receive (or be           
          treated as receiving) over half of his or her support from the              
          taxpayer.  Sec. 152(a).  In the case of a child whose parents               

               1 We note, however, that to qualify as a head of household             
          an individual must be unmarried, sec. 2(b)(1), and that an                  
          individual will be treated as not married if so treated under               
          sec. 7703(b).  The parties agree that petitioner was married, and           
          as discussed infra, we conclude that petitioner should not be               
          treated as not married under sec. 7703(b).                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008