T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-112
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ALFRED CASTRO ESPINOZA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12391-07S. Filed August 28, 2008.
Alfred Castro Espinoza, pro se.
Nina S. Kang, for respondent.
DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to
the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b),
the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,
and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue,
- 2 -
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
Respondent denied petitioner’s dependency exemption
deductions and head of household filing status, determining a
$2,475 deficiency in petitioner’s 2005 Federal income tax. The
issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to claim:
(1) Dependency exemption deductions for AR and JR;1 and (2) head
of household filing status.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence
are incorporated herein by reference. When the petition was
filed, petitioner resided in California.
Petitioner filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, for 2005. He claimed dependency exemption deductions for
JR and AR and filed as a head of household. JR and AR are the
children of petitioner’s then girlfriend;2 he is not related to
the children by blood. In 2005 petitioner was not related to JR
and AR by marriage, he had not legally adopted the children, and
they were not his eligible foster children.
1
The Court refers to minor children by their initials. See
Rule 27(a)(3). The evidence in the record indicates that the
children were 9 and 7 years old in 2005.
2
Petitioner and his former girlfriend are now husband and
wife.
- 3 -
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency
are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden to prove
that the determinations are in error. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). But the burden of proof on
factual issues that affect the taxpayer’s tax liability may be
shifted to the Commissioner where the “taxpayer introduces
credible evidence with respect to * * * such issue.” See sec.
7491(a)(1). Petitioner has not alleged that section 7491(a)
applies; however, the Court need not decide whether the burden
shifted to respondent since the Court’s analysis is based on the
record before it and not on who bears the burden of proof.
II. Dependency Exemption Deductions
Section 151(c) allows a taxpayer to claim as a deduction the
exemption amount for each individual who is a “dependent” of the
taxpayer as defined in section 152. Section 152(a) provides that
the term “dependent” includes a “qualifying child” or “qualifying
relative.” A qualifying child is a child who bears a certain
relationship to the taxpayer. Sec. 152(c)(1)(A). The
relationship exists if the claimed dependent is the taxpayer’s:
(1) Child or descendant of such child; or (2) brother, sister,
stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any such relative.
Sec. 152(c)(2). The term “child” means an individual who is the
- 4 -
taxpayer’s son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter, an adopted
individual, or an “eligible foster child”. Sec. 152(f)(1).
Petitioner is not related to JR or AR by blood. In 2005 he
was not related to JR or AR by marriage, he was not their
adoptive parent, and they were not his eligible foster children.
Petitioner has failed to establish that either JR or AR is his
qualifying child.
In pertinent part, section 152(d)(1)(D) defines a qualifying
relative as an individual who is not a qualifying child of any
other taxpayer for the taxable year.
JR and AR are qualifying children of their mother.3 See
sec. 152(c)(1), (2)(A), (3). Thus, JR and AR are not
petitioner’s qualifying relatives. See sec. 152(d)(1)(D).
On the basis of the foregoing, petitioner is not entitled to
a dependency exemption deduction for JR or AR, and respondent’s
determination is sustained.
III. Head of Household Filing Status
As is relevant here, section 2(b)(1) defines “head of a
household” as an unmarried individual who maintains as his home a
household that constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable
year the principal place of abode of a qualifying child or
qualifying relative of the taxpayer. JR and AR are not
3
In 2005 the minor children resided with their mother in
Whittier, Cal. Petitioner resided in Bakersfield, Cal., during
the week and commuted to Whittier, Cal., on his days off.
- 5 -
petitioner’s qualifying children or qualifying relatives. Thus,
petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status for
2005, and respondent’s determination is sustained.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.