T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-94
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
EARL GRIFFIN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16258-03S. Filed July 20, 2005.
Earl Griffin, pro se.
Stewart Todd Hittinger, for respondent.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
1
pursuant to section 7463 in effect when 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.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,161 in petitioner's
Federal income tax for 1998.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue.
- 2 -
After concessions by petitioner, the sole issue for decision
is whether petitioner is entitled to the earned income credit
2
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 Gary, Indiana.
Petitioner was previously married, and he and his spouse
divorced in either 1996 or 1997. They had one child, a daughter,
who was 14 years of age as of the end of the 1998 taxable year.
Throughout the year at issue, the child lived with her mother in
California.
For the year at issue, 1998, petitioner claimed his daughter
as a dependent on his Federal income tax return. Respondent
agrees that petitioner was entitled to the dependency exemption
deduction because petitioner obtained the necessary consent from
his former spouse to claim the dependency exemption deduction for
that year. The dependency exemption deduction is not an
adjustment in the notice of deficiency.
2
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner failed to report taxable interest income of $36 and
that petitioner was not entitled to head-of-household filing
status. At trial, petitioner conceded these adjustments and that
his filing status was single.
- 3 -
On his 1998 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed an
earned income credit under section 32(a) in the amount of $1,861.
The entire amount of the credit was disallowed in the notice of
deficiency on the ground that the child did not reside with
petitioner during the year in question as required by section
32(c)(3)(A)(ii). Petitioner’s concession of the head-of-
household issue confirms that the child did not live with
petitioner more than one-half of the taxable year as required by
section 32(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Respondent agrees that, under section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii), a
taxpayer is entitled to the earned income credit if such taxpayer
does not have a qualifying child (as is the situation here) but
satisfies the following conditions:
(1) The taxpayer’s principal place of abode was in the
United States for more than one-half of the taxable year;
(2) the taxpayer had attained age 25 and not attained age 65
on or before the close of the taxable year; and
(3) the taxpayer 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).
While petitioner in this case satisfies these requirements,
there is a further limitation petitioner does not satisfy.
Section 32(b) provides a phaseout of the credit where the
taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeds certain prescribed
- 4 -
amounts. Petitioner’s adjusted gross income (including the
amount conceded) was $14,843, and the limitation for that year
was $10,300. Therefore, the Court agrees with respondent that
petitioner’s adjusted gross income exceeded the amount by which
he could have claimed an earned income credit under section
32(c)(1)(A)(ii). Respondent, therefore, is sustained on this
issue.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.