T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-11
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
THADDEUS D. HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 8957-99S. Filed February 7, 2001.
Thaddeus D. Hollingsworth, pro se.
Robert S. Scarbrough, for respondent.
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be
entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority. Unless otherwise indicated,
subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue.
- 2 -
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal
income taxes for 1995, 1996, and 1997 in the amounts of $3,608,
$2,846, and $3,505, respectively. The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption
deductions for his two sons; (2) whether petitioner is entitled
to head of household status; and (3) whether petitioner is
entitled to earned income credits.
Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are
so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received
into evidence at trial are incorporated herein by this reference.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner lived in Seattle,
Washington.
Petitioner has two minor sons: Thaddeus S. Hollingsworth,
born on November 24, 1982, and Malcolm R. Hollingsworth, born on
July 10, 1984 (collectively the children). Petitioner and Celia
Smith (Ms. Smith), the children’s mother, were never married.
They agreed, however, that Ms. Smith would have legal custody of
the children. They further agreed that the children would stay
with petitioner on the weekends and during the summer months.
Under the supervision of the Department of Child Services,
petitioner is required to pay child support of approximately $400
per month.1
1
The record shows that petitioner has been in arrears in
all years in issue.
- 3 -
The children lived with Ms. Smith in a 1-bedroom apartment
in 1995 and then a 2-bedroom apartment with Ms. Smith and her
mother in 1996 and 1997. Although Ms. Smith had full custody of
the children, there is scant evidence in the record as to her
employment history during the years in issue. Ms. Smith received
public benefits during some months throughout the years in issue.
In 1995, petitioner worked as a janitor and part-time bus
driver. In 1996 and 1997, petitioner worked full-time as a
janitor for Dependable Building Maintenance. Petitioner lived in
the basement of his brother’s 4-bedroom home during 1995. During
the weekends and summer months, the children also lived with
petitioner in his brother’s home. Petitioner paid $300 per month
in rent. In 1996 and 1997, petitioner moved into a 2-bedroom
apartment near Ms. Smith. Petitioner paid for the children’s
meals, school clothing, and some additional child support. When
the children stayed with him, he would diminish his own expenses
in order to care for the children’s needs.
In petitioner’s respective 1995, 1996, and 1997 Federal
income tax returns, he claimed dependency exemptions for his
minor children, head of household filing status, and earned
income credits. For each year, respondent disallowed the
dependency exemption because petitioner failed to establish that
he was entitled to the exemption. As a result of the
disallowance, respondent further determined that petitioner’s
- 4 -
filing status was single, not head of household, and also
disallowed the earned income credit.
Dependency Exemption
Section 151(c) allows a taxpayer to deduct an annual
exemption amount for each dependent of the taxpayer. A
“dependent” is defined in section 152(a) as an individual “over
half of whose support, for the calendar year in which the taxable
year of the taxpayer begins, was received from the taxpayer (or
is treated under subsection (c) or (e) as received from the
taxpayer)”. In order to prevail, petitioner must show by
competent evidence: (1) The total support provided for each
child, and (2) that he provided more than half of such total
support. The amount of total support may be reasonably inferred
from competent evidence. See Stafford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C.
515, 518 (1966). However, where the amount of total support of a
child during the taxable year is not shown, and cannot be
reasonably inferred from competent evidence, then it is not
possible to conclude that the taxpayer has contributed more than
one-half. See Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 515 (1971);
Fitzner v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 1252, 1255 (1959).
Although we find petitioner’s testimony credible as to the
amount he contributed to the children’s support, the record based
solely on his contributions is incomplete. Petitioner was unable
to reconstruct the dollar amount of the total support for the
- 5 -
children for the years in issue. We recognize that it is
reasonable to infer Ms. Smith may have contributed a modicum
amount to the support of her children. However, Ms. Smith was
employed during some months of the years in issue, and, without
evidence of her income or additional assistance she may have
received from her mother, we are unable to determine the total
support available to the children by all able parties. Neither
Ms. Smith nor her mother testified at trial.
By failing to establish the total amount of support provided
to petitioner’s children from all sources, including Ms. Smith’s
public assistance, we are unable to conclude that petitioner
provided more than one-half of the children’s total support
during the years in issue. Therefore, we hold that petitioner is
not entitled to section 151 dependency exemption deductions for
the 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax years. Respondent is sustained on
this issue.
Head of Household Status
According to the relevant part of section 2(b), an
individual shall be considered a head of household if such
individual (1) is not married at the close of the taxable year
and (2) maintains as his home a household which constitutes for
more than one-half of the taxable year the principal place of
abode for a son or daughter.
Petitioner was not married to Ms. Smith at the close of
- 6 -
1995, 1996, or 1997. Therefore, petitioner satisfies the first
requirement of section 2(b). However, petitioner fails to
establish the second requirement because he did not maintain his
home as the principal place of abode for his children for more
than one-half of any of the years in issue. Petitioner testified
that the children lived with him on the weekends and during the
summer months, which does not meet the time period requirement of
section 2(b).
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to file his 1995,
1996, and 1997 Federal income tax returns as head of household.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Earned Income Credit
The relevant parts of section 32 provide that an individual
is eligible for the earned income credit if the individual has a
qualifying child. A “qualifying child” is a son or daughter of
the taxpayer who has not attained the age of 19 at the end of the
taxable year and shares the same principal place of abode in the
United States with the taxpayer for more than one-half of the
taxable year. Neither child was 19 years old at the end of 1995,
1996, or 1997. But because petitioner’s children resided with
him for less than one-half of the 1995, 1996, and 1997 taxable
years, petitioner fails to meet the time period requirement of
section 32. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
- 7 -
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.