Willoughby v. Comm'r
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
CHIECHI,
The issues remaining for decision for petitioner's taxable year 2006 are:
(1) Is petitioner entitled to head of household filing status under
(2) Is petitioner entitled to the child care credit under
(3) Is petitioner entitled to the additional child tax credit under
(4) Is petitioner entitled to the earned income tax credit under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated by the parties and are so found.
At the time petitioner filed the petition, he resided in Nebraska.
Throughout 2006, petitioner resided with a woman to whom he was not married and that woman's two daughters, JP and *59 KP, who were not his biological or adoptive daughters. During that year, petitioner provided more than one-half of the total support of each of those children. Neither JP nor KP suffered from any physical or mental impairment in 2006.
Petitioner timely filed Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for his taxable year 2006 (2006 tax return). In the 2006 tax return, petitioner claimed (1) head of household filing status, (2) dependency exemption deductions for JP and KP, (3) the child care credit, (4) the additional child tax credit, and (5) the earned income tax credit. In that return, petitioner claimed the additional child tax credit because he reported in that return a total tax liability of zero.
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 deductions for JP and KP, (3) child care credit, (4) additional child tax credit, and (5) earned income tax credit.
OPINION
It is petitioner's position that, because respondent concedes that he is entitled for his taxable year 2006 to dependency exemption deductions *60 for JP and KP, he is entitled for that year to head of household filing status, the child care credit, the additional child tax credit, and the earned income tax credit that he claimed in his 2006 tax return.
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled for his taxable *61 year 2006 to dependency exemption deductions for JP and KP. According to respondent, petitioner is entitled to those deductions only because JP and KP are his dependents under
We turn first to whether JP and KP are petitioner's qualifying children as defined in
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 *62 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 (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.
The term "stepdaughter" in
We have found that during 2006 JP and KP were not petitioner's biological or adoptive daughters. See
We turn next to whether for petitioner's taxable year 2006 JP and KP are his qualifying relatives and therefore are his dependents because they are described in a subparagraph of
SEC. 152. DEPENDENT DEFINED. (d) Qualifying Relative. -- For purposes of this section -- (1) In general.--The term "qualifying relative" 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) whose gross income for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins 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 individual'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 *65 year in which such taxable year begins.
As pertinent here, (A) A child or a descendant of a child. * * * * * * * (H) An individual (other than * * * the spouse * * * of the taxpayer) who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household.
We have found that during 2006 neither JP nor KP was a child of petitioner as defined in
Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not establish, that JP or KP is (1) petitioner's sister or stepsister, (2) his mother or an ancestor of his mother, (3) his stepmother, (4) a daughter of petitioner's brother *66 or sister, (5) a sister of petitioner's father or mother, or (6) petitioner's daughter-inlaw, sister-in-law, or mother-in-law. See
Based upon our findings and respondent's concession that for petitioner's taxable year 2006 JP and KP are his qualifying relatives under
SEC. 21. EXPENSES FOR HOUSEHOLD AND DEPENDENT CARE SERVICES NECESSARY FOR GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. (b) Definitions of Qualifying Individual and Employment-Related Expenses. -- For purposes of this section -- (1) Qualifying individual. -- The term "qualifying individual" means -- (A) a dependent *67 of the taxpayer (as defined in section 152(a)(1)) who has not attained age 13, [or] (B) a dependent of the taxpayer (as defined in section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B)) who is physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself and who has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of such taxable year * * *
We have found that for his taxable year 2006 neither JP nor KP is a qualifying child of petitioner as defined in
Although respondent concedes that for petitioner's taxable year 2006 JP and KP are petitioner's dependents under
On the record before us, we find that petitioner is not entitled for his taxable year 2006 to the child care credit under
The child tax credit may not exceed the taxpayer's regular tax liability.
We have found that for his taxable year 2006 neither JP nor KP is a qualifying child of petitioner as defined in
We have found that for his taxable year 2006 neither JP nor KP is a qualifying child of petitioner as defined in
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 and the concession of respondent,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioner does not contend that JP and KP are eligible foster children under
sec. 152(f)(1)(A)(ii)↩ .3. Petitioner does not contend that JP and KP were placed with him for adoption before or during 2006.↩
4. It is
sec. 152(d)(2)(H)↩ on which respondent bases respondent's concession that JP and KP are petitioner's qualifying relatives and therefore are his dependents.5. As discussed above,
sec. 152(f)(1) defines the term "child" for purposes ofsec. 152↩ .6. The parties do not dispute that JP and KP were both under age 17 at the close of petitioner's taxable year 2006 and that therefore each satisfies the age restriction in
sec. 24(c)(1)↩ .7. In the 2006 tax return, petitioner did not claim the child tax credit; he claimed only the additional child tax credit because he reported in that return a total tax liability of zero.↩
8. 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 children.
Sec. 32(b) . The credit is also subject to a limitation based on adjusted gross income.Sec. 32(a)(2) . Seeinfra↩ note 9.9. Assuming arguendo that petitioner were an eligible individual as defined in
sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) for his taxable year 2006, he nonetheless would not been titled to the earned income tax credit for that year. That is because petitioner reported adjusted gross income for his taxable year 2006 of $ 21,025.Sec. 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. SeeRev. Proc. 2005-70 , sec. 3.06(1),2005-2 C.B. 979↩, 982 .
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.