- 3 -
Discussion
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