T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-48
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIE, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2427-02S. Filed May 6, 2003.
Christopher Christie, pro se.
John D. Faucher, for respondent.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
1
pursuant to section 7463. The decision to be entered is not
reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be
cited as authority.
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.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,632 in petitioner's
Federal income tax for 2000.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is
entitled to a dependency exemption deduction under section
151(c); (2) whether petitioner is entitled to head-of-household
filing status under section 2(b); and (3) whether petitioner is
entitled to the earned income credit under section 32(a).
Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the
annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by
reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's
legal residence was Houston, Texas.
Petitioner was incarcerated in the Texas State prison system
at Amarillo, Texas, for 5-1/2 years. He was released from
incarceration on or about June 27, 2000. At that time,
petitioner moved in with his mother and an aunt who lived in a
home owned by them and 11 other brothers and sisters. Petitioner
lived with them throughout the remainder of 2000. Shortly after
his release from prison, petitioner began working for several of
his friends doing carpentry work. They paid petitioner in cash
for his services, and no IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement,
were issued to him at the end of 2000 with respect to the amounts
paid to him. At trial, petitioner admitted earning between
$3,400 to $4,000 while he was so employed. In September 2000,
petitioner began working for MHI Hotels LLC and earned $9,056.79
- 3 -
with this employer during the remainder of 2000. This amount was
reflected on a Form W-2 issued to petitioner.
Although petitioner previously had a common-law marriage, he
was not married during the year 2000. However, petitioner claims
to have had a child in a relationship with a different woman and
offered into evidence a birth certificate for a female named La
Toya La'Que Johnson, who was born on October 4, 1980, and whose
mother is listed as Shirley Dianne Johnson. The birth
certificate, however, does not list a father, although petitioner
claims he was the father of La Toya Johnson. Petitioner was
never married to Shirley Dianne Johnson.
Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2000 on
which he reported the $9,057 wage and salary income earned from
MHI Hotels LLC. He did not report the cash income he earned
doing carpentry work. Petitioner claimed head-of-household
filing status and claimed a dependency exemption deduction for La
Toya Johnson. The return shows a zero tax liability, Federal
income tax withheld of $966, and a claimed earned income credit
of $2,353, based upon La Toya Johnson as the qualifying child.
The tax withheld and the earned income credit totaled $3,319, all
of which was claimed as a refund. Petitioner did not elect to
have that amount applied to his 2001 estimated Federal income
tax.
- 4 -
In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed
petitioner's claimed dependency exemption, disallowed the earned
income credit, and determined that petitioner's filing status was
single rather than head-of-household. Although respondent became
aware of petitioner's unreported cash income from petitioner's
admission at trial, respondent did not move to assert an
increased deficiency attributable to the unreported cash income
payments.
The Court first addresses petitioner's entitlement to the
2
claimed dependency exemption deduction for La Toya Johnson. The
Court assumes that La Toya Johnson was petitioner's child,
although the evidence for such a conclusion is not entirely
convincing.
Section 151(c) allows taxpayers to deduct an annual
exemption amount for each dependent as defined in section 152.
Under section 152(a), the term "dependent" means certain
2
At trial, respondent agreed that sec. 7491 is applicable in
this case because the audit of petitioner's Federal income tax
return commenced after July 22, 1998. Sec. 7491, in certain
instances, shifts the burden of proof from petitioner to
respondent. Rule 142(a). The Court concludes the burden of
proof did not shift to respondent because petitioner failed to
satisfy the conditions of sec. 7491. Specifically, petitioner
maintained no records to substantiate the claimed dependency
exemption and ignored all requests by respondent prior to trial
for such information. Petitioner's first meeting with counsel
for respondent was a belated appearance after the Court had
completed the call of the calendar at the commencement of the
trial session. Sec. 7491(a)(2).
- 5 -
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 was incarcerated for the first 6 months of the
year 2000 and admitted he provided no support to La Toya Johnson
during that period. After petitioner was released from
- 6 -
incarceration and began residing with his mother and aunt,
Shirley Johnson and her child moved in with them. Petitioner
acknowledged that Shirley Johnson held part-time jobs during that
period, although no evidence was presented as to the amount of
her earnings or other sources of support she may have had, nor
was any evidence presented to show what amounts petitioner
provided to his daughter for her support. The home was not owned
by petitioner, although he claimed at trial that he paid the
utilities and the groceries for all the occupants of the home.
Petitioner, however, maintained no records to document the
amounts that were expended by him and, in particular, the amounts
spent for his daughter. His mother and aunt were both receiving
retirement benefits and presumably shared in some of these
expenses. On this record, the Court concludes that petitioner
failed to establish that he provided more than half of La Toya
Johnson's support during 2000. Respondent is sustained on this
issue.
The second issue is whether petitioner is entitled to head-
of-household filing status for the year at issue. Section 2(b)
provides generally that an individual shall be considered a head-
of-household if, among other requisites not pertinent here, such
individual maintains as his home a household that constitutes for
more than one-half of such taxable year the principal place of
- 7 -
abode, as a member of such household, of an unmarried son or
daughter of the taxpayer. See sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i).
The evidence fails to establish that petitioner maintained
as his home "a household" that constituted the principal place of
abode for La Toya Johnson. Petitioner did not own the home where
he resided (for only half the year), and his claim to paying the
costs for utilities and food for maintenance of the household
does not satisfy the Court that petitioner "maintained" a
household during the year at issue. Respondent, therefore, is
sustained in the disallowance of petitioner's claimed head-of-
household filing status.
The final issue is petitioner's claim to the earned income
credit. 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
identification requirement. See sec. 32(c)(3). To satisfy the
age test, the qualifying child must not have attained the age of
19 as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year
of the taxpayer begins. Sec. 32(c)(3)(C)(i). Petitioner's
daughter, La Toya Johnson, attained age 20 on October 4, 2000.
Therefore, petitioner's daughter does not satisfy the age test
- 8 -
and, therefore, was not a qualifying child for purposes of the
earned income credit. However, section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) allows an
earned income credit to an "eligible individual" if such
individual does not have a qualifying child but satisfies the
following conditions:
(1) Such individual's principal place of abode was in the
United States for more than one-half of the taxable year;
(2) the individual had attained age 25 and not attained age
65 on or before the close of the taxable year; and
(3) such individual was not a dependent for whom a deduction
is allowable under section 151 to another taxpayer for the
taxable year at issue. Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(I), (II), and (III).
On this record, the Court is satisfied that petitioner was
at least 25 years of age and had not attained age 65 prior to
2000. Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioner is entitled
to the earned income credit under section 32 as an eligible
individual with no qualifying children. Sec. 32(b)(1)(A).
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.