T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-12
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RICKY R. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18147-98S. Filed February 15, 2001.
Ricky R. Williams, pro se.
Philip G. Owens, for respondent.
CARLUZZO, 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. Unless otherwise
indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for 1997. The decision to be entered is
not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be
cited as authority.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,193 in petitioner’s
1997 Federal income tax. The issues for decision are: (1)
Whether petitioner qualifies as a head of household, and (2)
whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income tax credit.
The resolution of both issues depends upon petitioner’s marital
status, for certain purposes, as of the close of 1997.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Jeffersonville, Indiana.
Petitioner and Sheila Eggleston (petitioner’s spouse) were
married in 1978 and remained married as of the date of trial.
They are the parents of three children, one of whom died before
the year in issue.
In 1992, petitioner and his spouse purchased a house in
Louisville, Kentucky, that was used as the family residence (the
Louisville residence). Starting sometime in 1992, and from time
to time thereafter, petitioner and his spouse separated due to
marital difficulties. Typically, one or the other moved from the
Louisville residence and resided elsewhere. Periodic separations
were followed by reconciliations when they resumed living
together at the Louisville residence. At times, petitioner and
his spouse resided together solely for financial reasons.
- 3 -
In January 1997, they were living together at the Louisville
residence. In April of that year, petitioner’s spouse moved into
her mother’s house, which was vacant at the time due to her
mother’s death. Petitioner’s spouse left various items of
personal property, including clothing, jewelry, and furniture at
the Louisville residence. Sometime around July 4, she removed
her clothing, jewelry, and other possessions from the Louisville
residence. As of the close of 1997, she had not formally changed
her address; the address of the Louisville residence was shown on
her driver’s license and used by her as her mailing address.
During those periods when petitioner moved from the Louisville
residence, he too, maintained that address as his mailing
address.
At least one of petitioner’s children lived at the
Louisville residence throughout 1997. From time to time after
petitioner’s spouse moved from the Louisville residence, she
returned there to visit with or pick up her child, gather her
clothing or other personal items, or collect her mail. She
continued to contribute towards the expenses of maintaining the
Louisville residence throughout the year.
Petitioner’s spouse moved back to the Louisville residence
in January 1998; petitioner moved out in February of that year,
and they maintained separate residences until at least October
1999 when petitioner moved back into the Louisville residence.
- 4 -
Petitioner filed his timely 1997 Federal income tax return
as a head of household. He claimed an earned income credit on
that return. Petitioner filed an amended return on April 29,
1998, but because of agreements between the parties, nothing
reported on the amended return is relevant here.
In a July 19, 1998, letter written by petitioner to
respondent’s examining agent during the course of the examination
that preceded this case, petitioner stated: “my spouse moved into
her mom’s home in July 1997".
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner did not qualify as a head of household for 1997 and
treated petitioner as a married individual who files a separate
return. Respondent further determined that he was not entitled
to an earned income credit for that year. According to the
explanation contained in the notice of deficiency, both
determinations were made because petitioner “did not establish
that * * * [he met] the qualifications of certain married
individuals living apart”.
Discussion
Subject to a variety of conditions, requirements and
limitations that need not be discussed, petitioner qualifies as a
head of household and is entitled to an earned income credit for
1997 only if he is considered as not married as of the close of
that year. See secs. 2(b)(1), 32(d).
- 5 -
Petitioner and his spouse were neither divorced nor legally
separated as of the close of 1997. However, for purposes of the
issues here in dispute, an individual will not be considered as
married as of the close of a taxable year, if “during the last 6
months of the taxable year, such individual’s spouse is not a
member of * * * [the individual’s] household”. Sec. 7703(b)(3);
see secs. 2(c), 32(d).
During 1997, the situs of petitioner’s household was the
Louisville residence. The parties disagree as to how long
petitioner’s spouse was a member of petitioner’s household during
that year. Petitioner claims that his spouse was a member of his
household only until April when she moved from the Louisville
residence to her deceased mother’s house; respondent takes the
position that the move occurred in July and that she was a member
of petitioner’s household up until that time. Obviously, if
petitioner’s version is correct then he satisfies the 6-month
requirement of section 7703(b)(3); if respondent’s version is
correct then he does not. See Becker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-177.
The determination of petitioner’s marital status under
section 7703(b)(3) is a question of fact. See Sharer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-453. Petitioner’s position is
supported by his testimony and the testimony of his wife. From
their demeanor and behavior at trial, the Court concludes that
- 6 -
their relationship at that time was less than cordial.
Nevertheless, both testified that she moved from the Louisville
residence in April 1997. Both testified that after moving in
April, she returned to the Louisville residence from time to time
to retrieve personal items stored there and to visit with her
son, and both testified that in early July 1997 she removed her
personal property from the Louisville residence.
Respondent disputes petitioner’s claim that his spouse moved
from the Louisville residence in April. Respondent points to the
petition, filed November 16, 1998, in which petitioner alleges
that his spouse “moved * * * in July 1997.” Respondent further
relies upon petitioner’s July 1998 letter to the examining agent
in which petitioner states “my spouse moved into her mom’s home
in July 1997". The line of questions put to petitioner during
his cross-examination strongly suggests that, as far as
respondent is concerned, petitioner’s claim that his wife moved
in April was concocted after petitioner realized that a
separation that began in July 1997 would be too late to allow him
to be considered as not married under section 7703(b) as of the
close of that year.
Respondent’s suggestion is well taken, but not persuasive.
Given petitioner’s plausible explanation of the references to
July 1997, we are inclined to accept his version of the relevant
events, as corroborated by his spouse, and find that she moved
- 7 -
from the Louisville residence during April 1997. We further find
that petitioner’s spouse was not a member of his household during
the remainder of that year. That being so, in accordance with
section 7703(b)(3), petitioner is not considered as married,
within the meaning of sections 2(b)(1) and 32(d) as of the close
of 1997. He therefore qualifies as a head of household and for
the earned income credit here in dispute for that year.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Based on the foregoing,
Decision will be
entered for petitioner.