Harris v. Comm'r , 2007 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 212 ( 2007 )

T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-202
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DIMITRI L. HARRIS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 26168-06S. Filed December 3, 2007.
Dimitri L. Harris, pro se.
James H. Brunson III, for respondent.
COUVILLION, 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.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue.
Sec. 7491 in certain instances shifts the burden of proof to the
Commissioner where the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with
respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the
liability of the taxpayer. However, the burden shifts to the
(continued...)
- 2 -
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.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $6,211.18 in Federal
income tax for petitioner’s 2005 tax year.
The issues for decision are whether, for the year 2005,
petitioner is entitled to (1) dependency exemption deductions for
two children under section 151(c); (2) head of household filing
status under section 2(b)(1); (3) the earned income credit under
section 32(a); (4) the child care credit under section 21(a)(1);
and (5) the additional child tax credit under section 24(a).
Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the
exhibits annexed thereto, are so found and are made part hereof.
Petitioner’s legal residence at the time the petition was filed
was Atlanta, Georgia. For reasons of privacy, the two children
claimed as dependents on petitioner’s 2005 Federal income tax
return are not identified by name and are referred to simply as
the “children”.
1
(...continued)
Commissioner only if the taxpayer has complied with all
requirements as to substantiation and has maintained the
necessary books and records with respect to the factual issues.
The burden does not shift to respondent in this case because
petitioner maintained no books and records or any other factual
evidence to establish his entitlement to the principal issue,
entitlement to dependency exemption deductions.
- 3 -
For the year 2005, petitioner timely filed a Form 1040A,
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. He filed as a head of
household and reported gross wage and salary income of
$22,694.50. Petitioner claimed two children as dependents, the
child care credit, the additional child tax credit, and the
earned income credit. In the notice of deficiency, respondent
determined that petitioner’s filing status was single and
disallowed the two claimed dependency exemption deductions, the
child care credit, the additional child tax credit, and the
earned income credit.
Petitioner was not married during the year at issue;
however, he lived with a woman and her four children. Petitioner
was not the father of these children. On his 2005 return
petitioner claimed two of the children as dependents. The two
children claimed were born, respectively, in 2000 and 2002. The
mother of the children was not employed during the year at issue.
On his 2005 return petitioner listed the two children as his
niece and nephew. Petitioner, however, was not so related to the
children.
The place where petitioner, the children, and their mother
lived was an apartment which was shared with another tenant.
Petitioner and the co-tenant paid the rent on the apartment. The
mother of the children, who was unemployed, did not pay any
portion of the rent.
- 4 -
Sometime after petitioner had filed his 2005 return,
petitioner mailed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) two
additional returns for 2005 that were intended to be amended
returns. On one return, the two children claimed as dependents
were listed as “adopted” children, and on the other return he
again claimed the same two children as dependents but also
claimed their mother as a dependent. Neither of the two amended
returns was accepted by the IRS.2
Dependency Exemption Deductions
The first issue is whether petitioner is entitled to claim
dependency exemption deductions for two children of the woman
with whom he lived. Under section 151(a), a taxpayer may be
entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for each of his or
her dependents. However, a taxpayer is entitled to claim a
dependency exemption deduction only if the claimed dependent is a
qualifying child or a qualifying relative under section 152(c) or
(d). Under section 152(c)(1)(A), a qualifying child is a child
who bears a relationship to the taxpayer under section 152(c)(2).
That relationship, for purposes of this case, exists if the
claimed dependent is either a child of the taxpayer or a
2
At trial, petitioner explained that the purpose of one of
the amended returns was to clarify that the two claimed dependent
children on the original return were not his niece and nephew,
but because he and the mother of the children were planning to
marry, the two children would be considered “adopted children”
and thus qualify as dependents. The second amended return
included the same two children and also the mother as dependents.
- 5 -
descendant of such child, or is a brother, sister, stepbrother,
or stepsister of the taxpayer or a descendant of any such
relative. Sec. 152(c)(1) and (2). The two children claimed as
dependents by petitioner do not fall within any of the
relationship requirements of section 152(c) described above since
petitioner and the mother of the children were not married in
2005. Hence, the children do not qualify as stepchildren of
petitioner. Therefore, the Court holds that petitioner is not
entitled to the dependency exemption deductions for the two
children of the woman with whom he lived during the year at
issue, and respondent’s determination is sustained.3
Head of Household Filing Status
The second issue is whether petitioner is entitled to head
of household filing status under section 2(b)(1).
3
Sec. 152(a)(2) allows a “qualifying relative” as a
dependent. Sec. 152(d)(2)(H) defines a qualifying relative as an
individual who has the same principal place of abode as the
taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s household. At trial,
petitioner did not assert that the two children were qualifying
relatives, nor did he present any evidence to establish that he
provided more than one-half of the total support for the two
children. Petitioner, the children, and their mother lived in an
apartment in which petitioner was a co-tenant with another
individual. It appears from the record that the cotenant paid at
least half of the rent for the apartment. No evidence was
presented to establish the total amount of support provided to
the two children for the year at issue. A taxpayer who cannot
establish the total amount of support provided to a claimed
dependent generally may not claim that individual as a dependent.
Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514-515 (1971).
- 6 -
Section 1(b) imposes a special tax rate on an individual
filing a Federal income tax return as head of household. Section
2(b)(1) defines “head of a household” as an individual taxpayer
who: (1) Is unmarried at the close of the taxable year; and (2)
maintains as his home a household which constitutes for more than
one-half of the taxable year the principal place of abode of a
qualifying child of the taxpayer or a dependent of the taxpayer
with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a dependency
exemption deduction under section 151. Sec. 2(b)(1)(A). Since
this Court concludes that the children were not qualifying
children of petitioner as defined in section 152(c) and that
petitioner is not entitled to dependency exemption deductions for
the children under sections 151 and 152(d)(2)(H), it follows that
petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status.
Respondent’s determination is sustained on this issue.
Earned Income Credit
The third issue is petitioner’s claim to the earned income
credit under section 32(a). 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 means a qualifying child
of the taxpayer as defined in section 152(c). Sec. 32(c)(3). As
discussed above, petitioner is not entitled to the earned income
- 7 -
credit because the two children upon whom petitioner claims the
earned income credit are not qualifying children. Respondent,
therefore, is sustained on this issue.
Child Care Credit
The fourth issue is whether petitioner is entitled to claim
the child care credit under section 21(a).
Section 21(a) generally allows a credit against the tax to
any individual who maintains a household that includes as a
member one or more qualifying individuals. The term “qualifying
individual”, under section 21(b), includes a dependent of the
taxpayer (as defined in section 152(a)(1)) under age 13. The
allowable credit, under section 21(b)(2), generally is based upon
employment-related expenses that are incurred to enable the
taxpayer to be gainfully employed, including expenses incurred
for the care of a qualifying individual. Petitioner is not
entitled to the child care credit for the same reason he is not
entitled to the dependency exemption deductions for the two
children. Further, petitioner failed to establish that he
incurred employment-related expenses for the care of the children
that enabled him to be employed. Respondent is sustained on this
issue.
- 8 -
Additional Child Tax Credit
The final issue is whether petitioner is entitled to claim
the additional child tax credit under section 24.
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). As relevant to this case, a
qualifying child means a qualifying child as defined in section
152(c) who has not reached the age of 17. Sec. 24(c)(1).
Earlier in this opinion, the Court held that the children
were not qualifying children of petitioner as defined in section
152(c). Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to the
additional child tax credit under section 24(a). Respondent is
sustained on this issue.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.