T.C. Memo. 2002-258
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LaTANYA HAYWOOD, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5223-01. Filed October 8, 2002.
LaTanya Haywood, pro se.
Vicki L. Miller, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency of $4,157 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1999.
Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the
annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by
reference. Petitioner's legal residence at the time the petition
was filed was Kansas City, Missouri.
- 2 -
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is
entitled to a dependency exemption deduction under section
151(c)1 for her son, Brandon R. Haywood, and (2) whether
petitioner's son, Brandon R. Haywood, is a qualifying child under
section 32(c)(3)(A) so as to increase the amount of the earned
income credit under section 32(a) allowable to petitioner.
In the stipulation, respondent conceded the following
adjustments in the notice of deficiency:
(1) That petitioner was entitled to a dependency exemption
deduction for another son, Brent R. Covington;
(2) That petitioner's son, Brent R. Covington, was a
qualifying child under section 32(c)(3)(A) entitling
petitioner to an earned income credit under section 32(a);
and
(3) That petitioner was entitled to head-of-household filing
status under section 2(b) instead of single as determined in
the notice of deficiency.
With respect to the first issue regarding the dependency
exemption deduction claimed for Brandon R. Haywood, section
151(c) allows taxpayers to deduct an annual exemption amount for
each dependent as defined in section 152. Under section 152(a),
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue.
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
- 3 -
the term "dependent" means certain individuals over half of whose
support was received from the taxpayer during the taxable year in
which such individuals are claimed as dependents. Eligible
individuals who may be claimed as dependents include, among
others, a son or daughter of the taxpayer. See sec. 152(a)(1).
Section 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides that,
in determining whether an individual received over half of his
support from the taxpayer, "there shall be taken into account the
amount of support received from the taxpayer as compared to the
entire amount of support which the individual received from all
sources, including support which the individual himself
supplied." In Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514-515
(1971), this Court held that, in establishing that more than one-
half of a dependent's support has been provided, a prerequisite
to such a showing is the demonstration by competent evidence of
the total amount of the dependent's support from all sources for
that year. If the amount of total support is not established and
cannot be reasonably inferred from competent evidence available
to the Court, it is not possible to conclude that the taxpayer
claiming the exemption provided more than one-half of the support
of the claimed dependent.
Petitioner's son, Brandon R. Haywood (Brandon), was born on
August 12, 1978, and, thus, attained the age of 21 during 1999.
On April 15, 1995, Brandon was convicted in the State of Missouri
- 4 -
of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a 15-year prison
term. He was incarcerated at or shortly after the sentencing
date, and, throughout 1999, Brandon was an inmate at the Missouri
Eastern Correction Center at either Pacific, Missouri, or the
prison facility at Cameron, Missouri. Brandon, therefore, did
not live with petitioner at any time during 1999. Petitioner
claimed Brandon as a dependent on her 1999 Federal income tax
return, which was disallowed by respondent on the ground that
petitioner did not provide more than one-half of petitioner's
support during the year in question.
Petitioner was not required by the State of Missouri to
provide or pay for any support for Brandon. Petitioner, however,
voluntarily paid on a biweekly basis amounts to the prison, which
were placed in an account for Brandon for his use in purchasing
allowable incidentals not furnished or provided by the prison.
Although petitioner did not substantiate the amounts she
contributed for Brandon during 1999, she claims that, after he
was incarcerated, she initially contributed $160 every 2 weeks
but later reduced the contributions to $50 every 2 weeks. The
Court assumes that, during 1999, petitioner's claimed
contributions would have approximated $50 every 2 weeks, or
$1,300.
The Court concludes from the record that petitioner failed
to establish that she provided more than half of Brandon's
- 5 -
support during 1999, even if she contributed $1,300 for his
support that year to pay for Brandon's incidental needs. The
Court rejects petitioner's contention that, because Brandon
qualified for and received special education at the prison,
petitioner was entitled to claim the dependency exemption
deduction for him. Section 152 and applicable regulations have
no provision that would qualify the beneficiaries of such
assistance as dependents under section 152. It is quite evident
from the record that Brandon's total support for 1999 was not
established, and that factor alone is sufficient to disallow
petitioner's entitlement to the dependency exemption deduction.
It is also evident that the support provided to Brandon by the
State prison system where he was incarcerated far exceeded the
monetary amounts provided by petitioner. Respondent, therefore,
is sustained on this issue.
The second issue is whether Brandon, during 1999, was a
qualifying child with regard to petitioner for purposes of the
earned income credit under section 32(a).
Section 32(a) provides for an earned income credit in the
case of an eligible individual. Section 32(c)(1)(A), in
pertinent part, defines an "eligible individual" as an individual
who has a qualifying child for the taxable year. Sec.
32(c)(1)(A)(i). A qualifying child is one who satisfies a
relationship test, a residency test, an age test, and an
- 6 -
identification requirement. See sec. 32(c)(3). To satisfy the
residency test, the qualifying child must have the same principal
place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the
taxable year in which the credit is claimed. Sec.
32(c)(3)(A)(ii).
As discussed above, petitioner's son, Brandon, did not have
his principal place of abode with petitioner during 1999. Her
son, Brandon, was not a qualifying child under section 32(a) so
as to increase the amount of petitioner's earned income credit
for 1999. Respondent, therefore, is sustained on this issue.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.