2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 141">*141 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 4,400 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2002. The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to head of household filing status under
2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 141">*142 Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the exhibits annexed thereto, are so found and are made part hereof. Petitioner's legal residence at the time the petition was filed was Marietta, Georgia.
Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2002 on which he claimed two dependency exemption deductions for his stepchildren, a child tax credit under section 24, and the earned income credit under
2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 141">*143 Petitioner has a master's degree in sociology and was employed in a rehabilitation center for the mentally retarded. During the year in question, petitioner was married to Charlene Hill. They were living separately and apart throughout the year 2002. They have never been divorced or legally separated. Petitioner and Ms. Hill have no children, although Ms. Hill has five children from a previous marriage. Respondent agrees that petitioner is entitled to the dependency exemption deductions for two of her children for the year at issue. It is for these two children that petitioner claims head of household filing status and the earned income credit.
Although the two children did not live full time with petitioner during 2002, they spent time with him every year, usually during the 3-month summer period when the children were not in school. Also, during the year, petitioner contributed money to his wife for payment of her house rent, which petitioner contends constituted his providing "accommodations" to the children. Petitioner also paid for the children's "fillings", which the Court assumes was for their dental expenses. The two children were 13 and 14 years of age during the year 2002.
2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 141">*144 With respect to the first issue, the claimed head of household filing status,
Petitioner's spouse did not live with him during the last 6 months of the year 2002. Respondent agrees that petitioner was entitled to the dependency exemption deductions for the two children. The remaining2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 141">*145 question is whether petitioner maintained as his home a household that constituted the principal place of abode for the two children for more than one-half of the year. Petitioner does not satisfy that requirement. The children lived with petitioner, at most, only 3 months during the year. At all other times, they lived with their mother. The mere fact that petitioner contributed or "provided accommodations" by reimbursing his wife for the rent on her place of abode is not considered maintaining a household where that household did not constitute petitioner's home.
The remaining issue is whether petitioner is entitled to the earned income credit.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. As a result of this concession, since the evidence at trial satisfied the conditions of sec. 24(c)(1) relating to the meaning of "qualifying child", the allowance of the dependency exemption deduction for the two children entitles petitioner to the child tax credit under sec. 24. Under sec. 24(c)(1), a qualifying child includes any individual who is a dependent under