T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-37
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LAKIM LOVE ALLAH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12913-01S. Filed April 18, 2003.
Lakim Love Allah, pro se.
Patricia A. Riegger, for respondent.
DINAN, 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
- 2 -
effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal
income tax of $3,717 for the taxable year 2000.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is
entitled to two dependency exemption deductions in 2000, and (2)
whether, and if so to what extent, petitioner is entitled to an
earned income credit in 2000.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
Brooklyn, New York, on the date the petition was filed in this
case.
Petitioner’s two sons, Lamani Lakim Christopher Clarke
(Lamani) and LaKim Love Allah, Jr. (LaKim), were born in 1996.
Lamani’s mother is Sandra Clarke. LaKim’s mother is Sharon
Herbert. During the year in issue, petitioner turned 38 years
old, he resided in the State of New York, and he earned wages of
$8,701.
Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for taxable
year 2000 as a single taxpayer. He claimed two dependency
exemption deductions for Lamani and LaKim, and he claimed an
earned income credit with Lamani and LaKim as qualifying
children. Petitioner did not attach to the return a written
- 3 -
declaration entitling him to one or both of the dependency
exemption deductions. In the statutory notice of deficiency,
respondent disallowed the dependency exemption deductions and the
earned income credit in full.
The first issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to dependency exemption deductions for Lamani and LaKim.
A deduction generally is allowed for each dependent of a
taxpayer. Sec. 151(a), (c)(1). As a general rule, a child of a
taxpayer is a dependent of the taxpayer only if the taxpayer
provides over half of the child’s support for the taxable year.
Sec. 152(a). A special rule applies to taxpayer-parents who are
divorced, who are separated, or who live separately for at least
the last 6 months of the calendar year, but who have custody of
the child for more than half of the year and who together provide
over half of the child’s support. Sec. 152(e)(1). Under this
rule, the parent with custody of the child for the greater
portion of the year (the “custodial parent”) generally is treated
as having provided over half of the child’s support, regardless
of which parent actually provided the support. Id.; sec. 1.152-
4(b), Income Tax Regs. An exception to this special rule exists
which entitles the noncustodial parent to the dependency
exemption deduction. Sec. 152(e)(2). For the exception to
apply, the custodial parent must sign a written declaration
- 4 -
releasing his or her claim to the deduction, and the noncustodial
parent must attach the declaration to his or her tax return. Id.
Each taxable year stands alone, and respondent may challenge
in a succeeding year what was condoned or agreed to in a former
year. Rose v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 28 (1970). Thus, a taxpayer
must meet the requirements of sections 151 and 152 in any given
taxable year to be entitled to a dependency exemption deduction,
even if respondent did not challenge a similarly claimed
deduction in a prior year.
Respondent argues that petitioner is not the custodial
parent of either of the children. Petitioner argues that he
resided with both of his sons during the year in issue. Because
petitioner has failed to offer any credible evidence concerning
the issue of where he and his children resided, petitioner bears
the burden of proving respondent’s disallowance of the deductions
to be in error. Sec. 7491(a)(1); Rule 142(a).
Petitioner testified that he resided in an apartment during
the year in issue with his two sons, with Ms. Clarke, and with
Ms. Clarke’s mother. During this time and through the time of
trial, however, petitioner used his father’s address as his own
mailing address. He testified that he kept this as his mailing
address because “you never know how things might work out.”
Petitioner did not state a specific date when he moved into the
apartment, or state how long he remained there. Petitioner
- 5 -
failed to provide any witnesses or documentation corroborating
his assertions. We find that petitioner has failed to establish
that he was the custodial parent for either of his sons during
the year in issue. Consequently, because petitioner did not
attach to his return a written declaration entitling him to the
dependency exemption deductions, we sustain respondent’s
determination that petitioner is not entitled to the deductions.
Furthermore, petitioner has failed to establish that he provided
any support for the children during that year. Even were we to
find that petitioner lived for some part of the last 6 months of
the year with Ms. Clark, he would not be entitled to a dependency
exemption deduction for Lamani. Secs. 151, 152.
The second issue for decision is whether, and if so to what
extent, petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit in
2000. An eligible individual is allowed a credit which is
calculated as a percentage of the individual’s earned income,
subject to certain limitations. Sec. 32(a)(1). A single
individual is an eligible individual if his principal place of
abode is in the United States for more than half of the taxable
year, if he is at least 25 years old but under 65 years old, and
if he is not a dependent of another taxpayer. Sec.
32(c)(1)(A)(ii). An individual with qualifying children is
entitled to a larger credit than is an individual without
qualifying children. Sec. 32(a) and (b). Subject to further
- 6 -
requirements, the definition of a qualifying child for purposes
of section 32 includes a child of a taxpayer who has the same
principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than half of
the taxable year. Sec. 32(c)(3)(A)(ii). Petitioner has failed
to show that either of his children had the same principal place
of abode as petitioner for more than half of 2000. Petitioner
therefore is not entitled to an earned income credit in 2000
based on Lamani and LaKim as qualifying children. Id.
Petitioner, however, is nevertheless entitled to a smaller
earned income credit than that claimed. Petitioner is an
eligible individual, and he earned $8,701 during the year in
issue. Respondent argues in his trial memorandum that taxpayers
without qualifying children who earn in excess of $5,280 are not
entitled to an earned income credit. This is incorrect.
According to the tables prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to
section 32(f), the lowest income amount at which the earned
income credit is no longer available in this situation is $10,380
for taxable year 2000. See also sec. 32(a), (b), (j). The
amount of the deficiency resulting from the correct amount of the
earned income credit will be calculated pursuant to a Rule 155
computation.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
- 7 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.