T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-73
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
UNTAYIA L. CHIZER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7364-05S. Filed May 3, 2006.
Untayia L. Chizer, pro se.
R. Scott Shieldes, for respondent.
DEAN, 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 as in effect for the taxable year at issue, and all
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any
- 2 -
other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
Respondent determined for 2003 a deficiency in petitioner’s
Federal income tax of $4,991.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled
to: (1) Deductions for dependency exemptions; (2) head of
household filing status; (3) the earned income credit; and (4)
the additional child tax credit.
The stipulated facts and exhibits received in evidence are
incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was
filed, petitioner resided in Houston, Texas.
Background
During 2003, petitioner resided in a household with her
mother, father, brother, sister, and her sister’s two children.
Petitioner filed her Federal income tax return for 2003 as head
of household, reported adjusted gross income of $13,088, and
claimed two dependency exemptions, CC and BD,1 the earned income
credit, and the additional child tax credit.
In a letter to respondent in 2004, petitioner stated that
with regard to BD: “I do not have the documentation necessary to
claim this person thus I am eliminating her as a dependent.” The
letter enclosed a birth certificate for CC, petitioner’s own
statement that she paid for “at least half of the support of my
brother”, and a notarized statement from her mother to the effect
1
The Court only uses initials of minor children.
- 3 -
that for 2003 petitioner paid a “portion” of her brother’s
support and provided him “a place of residence”. Petitioner also
sent with the letter evidence that CC was enrolled in the Lane
School during part of “grading period 5” and all of “grading
period 6”.
Discussion
The Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and
generally taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise.2 Rule
142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Dependency Exemption
Petitioner claimed deductions for two dependency exemptions
for 2003 which respondent disallowed in the notice of deficiency.
Section 151(c)(1) allows a taxpayer to deduct an exemption amount
for each qualifying “dependent” whose income is under the
exemption amount. A “dependent” means certain individuals,
including a brother, over half of whose support for the year was
received from or is treated as received from the taxpayer. Sec.
152(a).
To qualify for a dependency exemption deduction, a taxpayer
must establish the total support cost expended on behalf of a
claimed dependent from all sources for the year and demonstrate
2
Petitioner has not raised the issue of sec. 7491(a), which
shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner in certain
situations. The Court concludes that sec. 7491 does not apply
here because petitioner has not produced any evidence that
establishes the preconditions for its application.
- 4 -
that she provided more than half of this amount. See Archer v.
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 963, 967 (1980); Blanco v. Commissioner, 56
T.C. 512, 514-515 (1971); sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.
The term "support" includes food, shelter, clothing, medical
and dental care, education, and the like. Sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i),
Income Tax Regs. The total amount of support for each claimed
dependent furnished by all sources during the year in issue must
be established by competent evidence. Blanco v. Commissioner,
supra at 514; sec. 1.152-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. The amount of
support that the claimed dependent received from the taxpayer is
compared to the total amount of support the claimed dependent
received from all sources. Sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax
Regs.
Petitioner testified that “I feel that I should claim my
brother as a dependent.” When asked by the Court for her proof
of support, petitioner replied: “Well, I don’t have that proof.”
Petitioner has already admitted that she has no proof of support
for BD.
The Court sustains respondent's determination that
petitioner is not entitled to dependency exemption deductions for
2003.
Head of Household
Petitioner filed as a “head of household” for 2003. In the
notice of deficiency, respondent determined petitioner’s proper
- 5 -
filing status to be single.
Section 1(b) imposes a special tax rate on individuals
filing as “heads of households”. “Head of household” is defined
in section 2(b) as an unmarried individual who maintained as his
home a household which constitutes for more than one-half of the
taxable year the principal place of abode for specific family
members. See sec. 2(b)(1)(A). A taxpayer is considered to be
maintaining a household only if over half the cost of maintaining
the household during the taxable year is furnished by the
taxpayer. Sec. 2(b).
Petitioner produced no evidence to show that she provided
over half the cost of maintaining the household during 2003.
Therefore, respondent’s determination on this issue is sustained.
Earned Income Credit
Petitioner claimed the earned income credit for taxable year
2003 for two “qualifying children”. Respondent determined that
petitioner is not entitled to the earned income credit for 2003.
Section 32(a)(1) allows an eligible individual an earned
income credit against the individual’s income tax liability.
Section 32(a)(2) limits the credit allowed, and section 32(b)
prescribes different percentages and amounts used to calculate
the credit based on whether the eligible individual has no
qualifying children, one qualifying child, or two or more
qualifying children.
To be eligible to claim an earned income credit with respect
- 6 -
to a qualifying child, a taxpayer must establish, inter alia,
that the child bears a relationship to the taxpayer prescribed by
section 32(c)(3)(B), that the child meets the age requirements of
section 32(c)(3)(C), and that the child shares the same principal
place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the
taxable year as prescribed by section 32(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Under the relationship test, a brother would qualify if
petitioner had shown that she cared for the child as “her own
child”. Sec. 32(c)(3)(B)(i)(II). Petitioner has offered no
evidence that she cared for her brother as if he were her own
child.
Although petitioner is not eligible to claim an earned
income credit under section 32(c)(1)(A)(i) for a qualifying
child, she may be an “eligible individual” under section
32(c)(1)(A)(ii) even if she does not have any qualifying
children. For 2003, a taxpayer is eligible under this subsection
only if her adjusted gross income was less than $11,230. Rev.
Proc. 2002-70, 2002-2 C.B. 845. Petitioner’s adjusted gross
income was $13,088.
Accordingly, petitioner is not eligible for an earned income
credit. Respondent’s determination on this issue is sustained.
Additional Child Tax Credit
For 2003, petitioner did not claim a child tax credit, but
she claimed an “additional child tax credit” of $259. Respondent
- 7 -
determined that petitioner is not entitled to an additional child
tax credit for 2003.
Section 24(a) authorizes a child tax credit with respect to
each qualifying child of the taxpayer. The term “qualifying
child” is defined in section 24(c). A “qualifying child” means
an individual with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a
deduction under section 151, who has not attained the age of 17
as of the close of the taxable year and who bears a relationship
to the taxpayer as prescribed by section 32(c)(3)(B). Sec.
24(c)(1). Because petitioner has not shown that she is entitled
to a deduction under section 151 for a “qualifying child”, she is
not entitled to a child tax credit.
The child tax credit is a nonrefundable personal credit that
was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 101(a), 111 Stat. 796, with a
provision for a refundable credit, the “additional child tax
credit”, for families with three or more children. For taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000, the additional child tax
credit provision was amended to remove the restriction that only
families with three or more children are entitled to claim the
credit. See sec. 24(d)(1); Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-16, sec. 201(c)(1), 115
Stat. 46.
In the absence of other nonrefundable personal credits, a
- 8 -
taxpayer is allowed to claim a child tax credit in an amount that
is the lesser of the full child tax credit or the taxpayer’s
Federal income tax liability for the taxable year. See sec.
26(a).
If the child tax credit exceeds the taxpayer’s Federal
income tax liability for the taxable year, a portion of the child
tax credit may be refundable as an “additional child tax credit”
under section 24(d)(1). Because petitioner is not entitled to a
child tax credit, she is not entitled to an additional child tax
credit.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.