Emanuelson v. Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RAUM,
The parties have*397 stipulated that Priscilla earned more than $600 in 1969. She was a high school student during most of the year, but worked during the months of September through December when she earned approximately $1,500. This fact is fatal to the claim of a dependency exemption for Priscilla. Even assuming that Priscilla was otherwise petitioner's dependent, the exemption is precluded by the specific language of section 151(e)(1)(A) of the 1954 Code. Those provisions, as they applied to the year 1969, granted a $600 exemption for each dependent "whose gross income for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than $600 * * *". 2 There are no other provisions in the statute that could furnish a basis for the claimed exemption. Notwithstanding petitioner's complaint about the alleged unfairness of the result, the statute is clear, and we have no choice but to hold on this record that the Commissioner correctly disallowed the exemption.
*398
Footnotes
1. The head of household status turned upon dependency exemptions for certain members of the family other than Priscilla.↩
2. Other provisions, which did not fix a $600 limit on the gross income of the dependent, are applicable in the case of a taxpayer's
child↩ who is a student or who is under 19 years of age at the close of the year. Section 151(e)(1)(B).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.