Schultheiss v. Comm'r
Opinion
*150 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 4,230 in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2002. The issue is whether petitioners are entitled to claim dependency exemption deductions under
Background
This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to*151 Rule 122. Petitioner was previously married to Mrs. Lisa Friemark. During their marriage, petitioner and Mrs. Friemark had three children: MAS, 1 KES, and SMS (children). Petitioner and Mrs. Friemark were divorced on December 29, 1997, pursuant to a Final Judgment of Divorce (divorce decree) entered by the Family Court for Washington County, State of Rhode Island.
In accordance with the divorce decree, petitioner and Mrs. Friemark were awarded joint legal custody of the minor children. Mrs. Friemark was given primary physical custody of the children (custodial parent). Petitioner and Mrs. Friemark agreed to the following provision for claiming the children as dependents for Federal income tax purposes: That the parties shall share those tax deductions allowable as to the minor children, and Husband shall be permitted to claim all three children in the event that Wife would not benefit from use of a deduction, e.g., if she has not earned sufficient taxable*152 income.
Petitioners filed a Federal income tax return for tax year 2002, as married filing jointly. Petitioners claimed dependency exemption deductions for the children. Mrs. Friemark also claimed dependency exemption deductions for the children on a jointly filed Federal income tax return for tax year 2002.
Respondent disallowed petitioners' claimed dependency exemption deductions and issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners on March 29, 2004. Petitioners filed a timely petition on June 15, 2004.
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to claim dependency exemption deductions for the children in any year in which Mrs. Friemark would not "benefit" from claiming the deductions. Respondent disagrees.
Discussion
A taxpayer may be entitled to claim as a deduction an exemption amount for each of his or her dependents.
As to*153 the support test, a taxpayer generally must provide more than half of a claimed dependent's support for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins.
A custodial parent may release claim to the exemption pursuant to the provisions of * * * * (2) Exception where custodial*154 parent releases claim to exemption for the year.--A child * * * shall be treated as having received over half of his support during a calendar year from the noncustodial parent if-- (A) the custodial parent signs a written declaration (in such manner and form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe) that such custodial parent will not claim such child as a dependent for any taxable year beginning in such calendar year, and (B) the noncustodial parent attaches such written declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the taxable year beginning during such calendar year. For purposes of this subsection, the term "noncustodial parent" means the parent who is not the custodial parent.
The temporary regulations promulgated with respect to
Form 8332 requires a taxpayer to furnish: (1) The names of the children for which exemption claims were released; (2) the years for which the claims were released; (3) the signature of the custodial parent confirming his or her consent; (4) the Social Security number of the custodial parent; (5) the date of the custodial parent's signature; and (6) the name*156 and the Social Security number of the parent claiming the exemption.
Although petitioner and Mrs. Friemark have joint legal custody of the children, Mrs. Friemark has physical custody, and she is deemed to be the custodial parent for purposes of
Petitioners further argue that they are entitled to the dependency exemption deductions because of the terms of the divorce decree which provided that petitioner would be entitled to claim the children as dependents if Mrs. Freimark did not "benefit" from the use of the deduction. We need not and do not consider the contingency described in the divorce decree. As described above,
For the reasons set forth herein, respondent's determination is sustained.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. The Court uses the initials of minor children.↩
2. Temporary regulations are entitled to the same weight as final regulations. See
Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 790, 797 (1994) , affd.78 F.3d 795 (2d Cir. 1996) ;Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 141, 149↩ (1992) .3. While
sec. 152(e)(4)↩ permits a noncustodial parent to claim an exemption under specific circumstances, said section applies only to qualified pre-1985 instruments. The divorce decree was entered in 1997.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.