Eubanks v. Comm'r , 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 37 ( 2009 )

T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-36
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
TERRELL MICHAEL EUBANKS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 22717-07S. Filed March 19, 2009.
Terrell Michael Eubanks, pro se.
Harry J. Negro, for respondent.
CHIECHI, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provi-
sions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when
the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the deci-
sion to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this
opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.
1
Hereinafter, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) for the year at issue. All Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency of $4,047 in petitioner’s
Federal income tax (tax) for his taxable year 2006.
The issues for decision for petitioner’s taxable year 2006
are:
(1) Is petitioner entitled to a dependency exemption deduc-
tion under section 151(a) for his girlfriend’s child, MB? We
hold that he is not.
(2) Is petitioner entitled to head of household filing
status under section 2(b)? We hold that he is not.
(3) Is petitioner entitled to the child tax credit under
section 24(a)? We hold that he is not.
(4) Is petitioner entitled to the additional child tax
credit under section 24(d)? We hold that he is not.
(5) Is petitioner entitled to the earned income tax credit
under section 32(a)? We hold that he is not.
Background
Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated by the
parties and are so found.
At the time petitioner filed the petition in this case, he
resided in Pennsylvania.
MB is the son of Christa Barfield (Ms. Barfield), peti-
tioner’s girlfriend. Petitioner is not biologically related to
MB, and he is not MB’s adoptive father.
- 3 -
Petitioner filed a timely Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income
Tax Return (tax return), for his taxable year 2006. In that tax
return, petitioner claimed (1) head of household filing status,
(2) a dependency exemption deduction for MB, (3) the child tax
credit, (4) the additional child tax credit, and (5) the earned
income tax credit.
Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
(notice) for his taxable year 2006. In that notice, respondent,
inter alia, disallowed petitioner’s claimed (1) head of household
filing status, (2) dependency exemption deduction for MB,
(3) child tax credit, (4) additional child tax credit, and
(5) earned income tax credit.
Discussion
Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the determi-
nations in the notice are wrong. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
In support of his position with respect to each of the
issues presented in this case, petitioner relies on his own
testimony and the testimony of his girlfriend, Ms. Barfield. We
found petitioner’s testimony to be in certain material respects
conclusory, vague, uncorroborated, and self-serving. We found
the testimony of Ms. Barfield to be in certain material respects
conclusory, vague, uncorroborated, and serving the interest of
her boyfriend, petitioner. We are not required to, and we shall
- 4 -
not, rely on the respective testimonies of petitioner and Ms.
Barfield in order to establish petitioner’s respective positions
with respect to the issues presented. See, e.g., Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
Dependency Exemption Deduction
Section 151(a) provides that “the exemptions provided by
this section shall be allowed as deductions” to a taxpayer.
Section 151(c) provides an exemption for each dependent of the
taxpayer as defined in section 152. Section 152(a) defines the
term “dependent” to mean either a qualifying child or a qualify-
ing relative.
We turn first to whether for petitioner’s taxable year 2006
MB is petitioner’s qualifying child and therefore is his depend-
ent under section 152(a)(1). Section 152(c) defines the term
“qualifying child” as follows:
SEC. 152. DEPENDENT DEFINED.
(c) Qualifying Child.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) In general.--The term “qualifying
child” means, with respect to any taxpayer for any
taxable year, an individual--
(A) who bears a relationship to the
taxpayer described in paragraph (2),
(B) who has the same principal place
of abode as the taxpayer for more than
one-half of such taxable year,
(C) who meets the age requirements of
paragraph (3), and
- 5 -
(D) who has not provided over one-half
of such individual’s own support for the
calendar year in which the taxable year
of the taxpayer begins.
For purposes of section 152(c)(1)(C), an individual meets the age
requirements if that individual is under age 19. Sec.
152(c)(3)(A)(i).
Section 152(c)(2) provides that a person bears a relation-
ship to the taxpayer for purposes of section 152(c)(1)(A) “if
such individual is--(A) a child of the taxpayer or a descendant
of such child, or (B) a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsis-
ter of the taxpayer or a descendant of any such relative.”
Section 152(f)(1) defines the term “child” for purposes of
section 152 to mean either “a son, daughter, stepson, or step-
daughter of the taxpayer,” sec. 152(f)(1)(A)(i), or “an eligible
foster child of the taxpayer”,2 sec. 152(f)(1)(A)(ii). An indi-
vidual (1) legally adopted by the taxpayer or (2) placed with the
taxpayer for adoption by the taxpayer is treated as a child of
the taxpayer by blood.3 Sec. 152(f)(1)(B).
The term “stepson” in section 152(f)(1)(A) is not defined in
the Code. “Where, as is the case here, the statute does not
define the word, we generally interpret it by using its ordinary
2
Petitioner does not contend that MB is an eligible foster
child under sec. 152(f)(1)(A)(ii).
3
Petitioner does not contend that MB was placed with him for
adoption before or during 2006.
- 6 -
and common meaning.” Carlson v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 87, 93
(2001) (fn. ref. omitted). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictio-
nary 1223 (11th ed. 2007), defines the word “stepson” to mean “a
son of one’s wife or husband by a former partner”. Ms. Barfield
testified that she is petitioner’s girlfriend and did not claim
that she married petitioner at any time before or during 2006.
On the record before us, we find that during that year MB was not
petitioner’s stepson under section 152(f)(1)(A)(i).
We have found that petitioner is not biologically related to
MB and that he is not MB’s adoptive father. See sec.
152(f)(1)(A)(i) and (B). On the record before us, we find that
during 2006 MB was not a child of petitioner as defined in
section 152(f)(1). On that record, we further find that for
petitioner’s taxable year 2006 MB is not his qualifying child as
defined in section 152(c) and therefore is not his dependent
under section 152(a)(1).
We turn now to whether for petitioner’s taxable year 2006 MB
is petitioner’s qualifying relative and therefore is his depend-
ent under section 152(a)(2). Section 152(d) defines the term
“qualifying relative” as follows:
SEC. 152. DEPENDENT DEFINED.
(d) Qualifying Relative.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) In general.--The term “qualifying rela-
tive” means, with respect to any taxpayer for any
taxable year, an individual--
- 7 -
(A) who bears a relationship to the
taxpayer described in paragraph (2),
(B) whose gross income for the calen-
dar year in which such taxable year be-
gins is less than the exemption amount
(as defined in section 151(d)),
(C) with respect to whom the taxpayer
provides over one-half of the individ-
ual’s support for the calendar year in
which such taxable year begins, and
(D) who is not a qualifying child of
such taxpayer or of any other taxpayer
for any taxable year beginning in the
calendar year in which such taxable year
begins.
In order for petitioner to establish that he provided more
than one-half of MB’s total support during 2006, see sec.
152(d)(1)(C), petitioner must establish (1) the total amount of
support from all sources provided to MB during 2006 and (2) that
petitioner provided over one-half of that total amount during
that year. 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 provided by all sources during the year in question
must be shown by competent evidence. Blanco v. Commissioner,
supra at 514. Where the total amount of support provided to a
- 8 -
child during the year in question is not shown, and may not
reasonably be inferred from competent evidence, it is not possi-
ble to find that the taxpayer contributed more than one-half of
that child’s total support. Id. at 514-515; Fitzner v. Commis-
sioner, 31 T.C. 1252, 1255 (1959).
Petitioner did not proffer any evidence establishing the
amount of support he provided to MB during 2006, nor did he
proffer any evidence establishing the total amount of support
from all sources provided to MB during that year. Petitioner
also failed to proffer any evidence from which the Court might
infer the total amount of support provided to MB during 2006. On
the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry
his burden of establishing that during 2006 he provided more than
one-half of MB’s total support. On that record, we further find
that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing
that for his taxable year 2006 MB is his qualifying relative as
defined in section 152(d) and therefore is his dependent under
section 152(a)(2).
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of estab-
lishing that he is entitled for his taxable year 2006 to a
dependency exemption deduction under section 151(a) for MB.
- 9 -
Head of Household Filing Status
Section 1(b) provides a special tax rate for an individual
who qualifies as a head of household. As pertinent here, section
2(b)(1) provides that an unmarried individual “shall be consid-
ered a head of a household” if that individual “maintains as his
home a household which constitutes for more than one-half of such
taxable year the principal place of abode” of “a qualifying child
of the individual (as defined in section 152(c) * * *)”, sec.
2(b)(1)(A)(i), or “any other person who is a dependent of the
taxpayer, if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the
taxable year for such person under section 151”, sec.
2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
We have found that for petitioner’s taxable year 2006 MB is
not his qualifying child as defined in section 152(c). We have
also found that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
establishing that he is entitled for his taxable year 2006 to a
dependency exemption deduction under section 151(a) for MB.
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed
to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his
taxable year 2006 to head of household filing status under
section 2(b).
Child Tax Credit
Section 24(a) provides a credit with respect to each quali-
fying child of the taxpayer. Section 24(c)(1) defines the term
- 10 -
“qualifying child” as “a qualifying child of the taxpayer (as
defined in section 152(c)) who has not attained age 17.”4
We have found that for petitioner’s taxable year 2006 MB is
not his qualifying child as defined in section 152(c). On the
record before us, we find that for that year MB is not peti-
tioner’s qualifying child as defined in section 24(c). On that
record, we further find that petitioner is not entitled for his
taxable year 2006 to the child tax credit under section 24(a).
Additional Child Tax Credit
The child tax credit provided by section 24(a) may not
exceed the taxpayer’s regular tax liability. Sec. 24(b)(3).
Where a taxpayer is eligible for the child tax credit, but the
taxpayer’s regular tax liability is less than the amount of the
child tax credit potentially available under section 24(a),
section 24(d) makes a portion of the credit, known as the addi-
tional child tax credit, refundable.
We have found that petitioner is not entitled for his
taxable year 2006 to the child tax credit under section 24(a).
On the record before us, we find that petitioner is not entitled
for his taxable year 2006 to the additional child tax credit
under section 24(d).
4
The parties do not dispute that MB was under age 17 at the
close of petitioner’s taxable year 2006 and that therefore he
satisfies the age restriction in sec. 24(c)(1).
- 11 -
Earned Income Tax Credit
Section 32(a)(1) permits an eligible individual an earned
income credit against that individual’s tax liability.5 As
pertinent here, the term “eligible individual” is defined to mean
“any individual who has a qualifying child for the taxable year”.
Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(i). Section 32(c)(3)(A) defines the term
“qualifying child” to mean “a qualifying child of the taxpayer
(as defined in section 152(c) * * *).”
We have found that for petitioner’s taxable year 2006 MB is
not his qualifying child as defined in section 152(c). On the
record before us, we find that for that year MB is not peti-
tioner’s qualifying child as defined in section 32(c)(3)(A). On
that record, we further find that for that year petitioner is not
an eligible individual as defined in section 32(c)(1)(A)(i). On
the record before us, we find that petitioner is not entitled for
his taxable year 2006 to the earned income tax credit under
section 32(a).6
5
The amount of the credit is determined based on percentages
that vary depending on whether the taxpayer has one qualifying
child, two or more qualifying children, or no qualifying chil-
dren. Sec. 32(b). The credit is also subject to a limitation
based on adjusted gross income. Sec. 32(a)(2). See infra note
6.
6
Assuming arguendo that petitioner were an eligible individ-
ual as defined in sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) for his taxable year 2006,
he nonetheless would not be entitled to the earned income tax
credit for that year. That is because petitioner reported
adjusted gross income for his taxable year 2006 of $16,213. Sec.
(continued...)
- 12 -
We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions and
arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be
without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
6
(...continued)
32(a)(2) completely phases out the earned income tax credit for
an eligible individual with no qualifying children where the
taxpayer has adjusted gross income in excess of $12,120 for the
taxable year 2006. See Rev. Proc. 2005-70, sec. 3.06(1), 2005-2
C.B. 979, 982.