2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 92">*92 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 4,507 in petitioner's 2000 Federal income tax. The issues are whether petitioner is entitled to (1) dependency exemption deductions for his minor niece and nephew (the children), (2) an earned income credit (EIC) for the children, and (3) head of household filing status. Petitioner resided in Thomson, Georgia, at2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 92">*93 the time the petition was filed.
The facts may be summarized as follows. During the taxable year 2000, petitioner resided in a house owned by his parents. The house was owned free and clear of any mortgage. It was occupied by his parents, the children, a sister (not the mother of the children), and petitioner. The local probate court decreed that petitioner's parents were the legal guardians for the children. According to petitioner, his parents, his sister, and he had separate apartments, but all the utilities for gas, electric, and water were billed as one unit. Petitioner did not pay rent for the apartment he occupied, rather, he paid a portion of the utility bills for the entire house.
Petitioner's mother received welfare payments of approximately $ 110 per month for each child. Petitioner's father received Social Security benefits of approximately $ 1,200 per month or $ 14,400 per year. Petitioner did not know whether his parents had any other income. The Social Security benefits were greater than petitioner's annual income. With regard to the total support for the children, petitioner testified that he "really couldn't say a certain amount." Petitioner also produced no records2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 92">*94 and does not know the amount of support that he provided for the children.
In preparing his 2000 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed, with respect to the children, two dependency exemption deductions and an EIC based on the children's being his foster children, and used head of household filing status. Respondent disallowed the dependency exemption deductions and the EIC. Respondent also determined that petitioner's proper filing status was single.
Dependency Exemption Deductions
Petitioner argues that he is entitled to claim dependency exemption deductions with respect to the children. Generally,
2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 92">*95 It is axiomatic that in order to establish that petitioner provided more than half of the support of the children, he must establish the amount of the children's total support and the amount of support that he provided. Here, petitioner has satisfied neither of these prerequisites. Even if we assume that petitioner paid the utilities, he has not shown that that amount constituted more than half of the children's support. We sustain respondent's disallowance of the dependency exemption deductions.
EIC
Head of Household Filing Status
Petitioner claims that he maintained, as his household, the principal place of abode of the children, and, therefore, is entitled to use the head of household filing status.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
Decision will be entered for respondent.