T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-125
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KANOKWAN SMITH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10405-07S. Filed September 18, 2008.
Kanokwan Smith, 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, additional child tax credits, child or dependent care
credits, and head of household filing status, determining an
$8,134 deficiency in petitioner’s 2005 Federal income tax.1 The
issues remaining for decision are whether petitioner is entitled
to dependency exemption deductions and child tax credits for her
partner’s (Mr. Little) three minor children.2
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 and Mr. Little have lived together since November
2001. During 2005 they cohabited in Alaska. Petitioner and Mr.
Little married in a religious ceremony, but they did not obtain a
marriage license. Petitioner and Mr. Little held themselves out
as husband and wife, and “Everybody knew * * * [that they had
1
Respondent concedes that petitioner’s two biological
children are petitioner’s qualifying children and dependents.
Petitioner’s entitlement to head of household filing status
and child or dependent care credits was not argued by the
parties. Respondent’s concessions resolve these issues as to
petitioner’s dependents. See secs. 2(b), 21(a).
2
The children were 10, 8, and 7 years old in 2005.
- 3 -
married, religiously]”. Mr. Little’s children have no contact
with their biological mother and regard petitioner as their
mother. Petitioner provided the sole support for their family
during 2005 while Mr. Little (and his three children) attended a
religious and language school in Yemen.
Petitioner filed her 2005 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income
Tax Return, claiming head of household status, dependency
exemption deductions, child tax credits, additional child tax
credits, and child or dependent care credits.
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency
are presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden to prove
that the determinations are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). But the burden of proof on
factual issues that affect a taxpayer’s tax liability may be
shifted to the Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible
evidence with respect to the issue. See sec. 7491(a)(1). There
is no dispute as to any factual issue. Accordingly, this case is
decided by the application of law to the undisputed facts, and
section 7491(a) is inapplicable.
II. Dependency Exemption Deductions
Generally, taxpayers may claim dependency exemption
deductions for their dependents (as defined in section 152). See
- 4 -
sec. 151(c). The term “dependent” includes a “qualifying child”
or “qualifying relative.” Sec. 152(a). 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 taxpayer’s son, daughter, stepson,
stepdaughter, an adopted individual, or an “eligible foster
child”. Sec. 152(f)(1).
Petitioner was not related to Mr. Little’s children by
blood, she had not legally adopted the children, and they were
not her eligible foster children in 2005. Thus, petitioner’s
entitlement to the dependency exemption deductions hinges on
whether the children are petitioner’s stepsons or stepdaughters.
See sec. 152(c)(1)(A), (2)(A), (f)(1).
Petitioner and Mr. Little argue that petitioner is entitled
to dependency exemption deductions and child tax credits for Mr.
Little’s children because they cohabited in a common law marriage
and she provided the family’s sole support during 2005. Mr.
Little testified: “we got married in our mass, in our religious
organization, so after being together so many years, it was
recognized as such * * * she had no problem with rights over the
kids in Alaska.”
- 5 -
Generally, a person’s marital status, as determined by State
law, “is recognized in the administration of the Federal income
tax laws.” Rev. Rul. 58-66, 1958-1 C.B. 60; see also von Tersch
v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 415, 419 (1967); cf. Peveler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-460; Ross v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1972-122. Alaska Stat. sec. 25.05.011(a) (2006) provides:
“Marriage is a civil contract * * * that requires both a license
and solemnization.” See also Alaska Stat. secs. 25.05.011(b) (“A
person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a
license has been obtained”), 25.05.061 (“A marriage * * * is void
unless a license has first been obtained”); Harrelson v.
Harrelson, 932 P.2d 247, 250 (Alaska 1997) (“Alaska does not
recognize common law marriages.”).
Because Alaska law does not recognize common law marriages,
it follows that petitioner and Mr. Little were not married for
Federal income tax purposes and his children were not
petitioner’s stepsons or stepdaughters. See von Tersch v.
Commissioner, supra at 421-422. Therefore, Mr. Little’s children
were not petitioner’s qualifying children in 2005.
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.
- 6 -
Mr. Little’s children are his qualifying children. See sec.
152(c)(1)(A), (2)(A). Thus, Mr. Little’s children are not
petitioner’s qualifying relatives. See sec. 152(d)(1)(D).
On the basis of the foregoing, petitioner is not entitled to
dependency exemption deductions for Mr. Little’s children for
2005, and respondent’s determination is sustained.
III. Child Tax Credits
Generally, taxpayers may claim child tax credits for each
qualifying child (as defined in section 152(c)) under age 17.
See sec. 24(a), (c)(1).
Because Mr. Little’s children are not petitioner’s
qualifying children, she is not entitled to child tax credits for
those children, and respondent’s determination is sustained.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
Rule 155.