Briscoe v. Comm'r
Opinion
Decision will be entered for respondent.
VASQUEZ,
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Louisiana when the petition was filed.
Petitioner Mickel Briscoe (Mr. Briscoe) was formerly married to Nedra Ceaser (Ms. Ceaser). They had one child, J.B. Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Ceaser divorced on November 4, 2002. *163 The Louisiana 16th Judicial District Court (State court) entered a judgment of divorce (judgment) dissolving Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Ceaser's marriage. The judgment awarded Ms. Ceaser sole custody of J.B.
In 2006 Ms. Ceaser initiated an expedited child support proceeding against Mr. Briscoe, seeking an increase in child support. On November 6, 2006, the State court issued an order increasing Mr. Briscoe's child support obligation (support order). The support order also states that "Mickel Briscoe is hereby granted the right to claim the tax dependency exemption for the minor child(ren)." The support order contains Ms. Ceaser's signature but not her Social Security number.
Petitioners claimed J.B. as a dependent and claimed a child tax credit of $1,000 on their Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2007, dated March 19, 2008. Petitioners did not attach Form 8332, Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents, to their return. Instead, they attached a copy of the support order. Petitioners did not ask Ms. Ceaser to sign a Form 8332 or any other document declaring she would not claim J.B. as a dependent. Mr. Briscoe thought attaching the support order *164 was sufficient and was not familiar with the requirement to attach Form 8332. Ms. Ceaser claimed J.B. as a dependent on her 2007 return.
Petitioners have neither claimed nor shown that they satisfied the requirements of
Mr. Briscoe has not demonstrated that J.B. lived with him for more than one-half of 2007. Thus, J.B. is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child under
A qualifying relative must satisfy four requirements for the taxpayer to qualify for the deduction. See
Mr. Briscoe did not substantiate the amount of J.B.'s support from all sources in 2007. Mr. Briscoe also did not establish that J.B. was not a qualifying child of any other taxpayer for 2007 (e.g., Ms. Ceaser). J.B., therefore, is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying relative under
The Internal Revenue Service issued Form 8332 in order to standardize the written declaration required by
Petitioners did not attach Form 8332 to their Form 1040; instead, they attached a copy of the support order. The support order does not contain the years to which the order applies or Ms. Ceaser's Social Security number. The support order, therefore, does not conform to the substance of Form 8332 or satisfy the requirements of
Accordingly, we find that J.B. is not treated as Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child or qualifying relative under
A taxpayer may claim a child tax credit for "each qualifying child".
Because we have determined that J.B. is not Mr. Briscoe's qualifying child, it follows that petitioners are not entitled to the child tax credit for J.B.
We are not unsympathetic to petitioners' position. We also realize that the statutory requirements may seem to work harsh results to taxpayers, such as Mr. Briscoe, who are current in their child support obligations and who are entitled to claim the dependency exemption deductions or child tax credits under the terms of a child support order. However, we are bound by the statute as written and the accompanying regulations when consistent therewith.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. It is the policy of the Court to refer to a minor by his or her initials. See
Rule 27(a)(3)↩ .3. Respondent concedes that Mr. Briscoe meets the relationship requirement, the age requirement, and the support requirement.
4. The instructions permit this procedure only for divorce decrees that went into effect after 1984 and before 2009.↩
5. The instructions seem to imply that the custodial parent's Social Security number can be added to the cover page and need not have been part of the original decree. However, this distinction is immaterial as the custodial parent's Social Security number did not appear in anything petitioner attached to his Form 1040.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.