                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-11



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                AUDREY A. CARLISLE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7562-00S.               Filed February 13, 2002.


     Audrey A. Carlisle, pro se.

     Nguyen-Hong K. Hoang, for respondent.


     GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.   The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year in issue.
                                - 2 -


     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal

income tax for 1996 in the amount of $2,162.     The issues for

decision are:    (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a dependency

exemption deduction for her son; and (2) whether petitioner is

entitled to an earned income credit.     At the time the petition

was filed, petitioner lived in Fullerton, California.

     Petitioner has a minor son, Corey Lewis (Corey), born on

October 11, 1987.    On July 17, 1991, Annjeannette Lee White (Ms.

White) was appointed guardian of Corey, and received letters of

guardianship from the Orange County Superior Court.

     From January through May of 1996, petitioner and Corey lived

with Ms. White, her husband Albert White (Mr. White) and their

adult son, Clarence White (Clarence) (collectively the Whites),

in a 2-bedroom apartment in Anaheim, California (Anaheim

apartment).    The apartment also had a kitchen, dining/living

room, and backyard.    Petitioner paid $300 in cash directly to Ms.

White as her monthly contribution towards rent, utilities, and

food.   The Anaheim apartment lease was in Mr. and Ms. White’s

names, with a monthly rent of $740.     Ms. White did the grocery

shopping and cooking for the household.     Ms. White also purchased

all of Corey’s clothing during the year in issue.

     In June, petitioner moved to a 1-bedroom apartment in Buena

Park, California.    Corey remained with the Whites at the Anaheim

apartment.    Petitioner visited Corey and the Whites at the
                                - 3 -


Anaheim apartment often.    At that time, Corey was enrolled in

Stoddard Elementary School in Anaheim.    All report cards were

signed by Ms. White as Corey’s parent or legal guardian.      The

Whites and Corey moved to Rouses Point, New York, in September

1996 to be with Ms. White’s sister who was diagnosed with cancer.

Corey was enrolled into Rouses Point Elementary School on October

1, 1996.

     After Corey and the Whites moved to Rouses Point, petitioner

sent approximately $150 per month for Corey’s support.    Corey

wrote petitioner often and informed petitioner of items he wanted

or needed, e.g., ice skates for hockey, video games, and

clothing.   Petitioner shipped these items directly to Corey.

     On petitioner’s 1996 Federal income tax return, petitioner

reported wages of $14,066.    She also claimed a dependency

exemption deduction for Corey and an earned income credit.

Respondent disallowed the dependency exemption because petitioner

failed to establish that she was entitled to the exemption.

Respondent further determined that petitioner was not entitled to

the earned income credit.

Dependency Exemption

     Section 151(c) allows a taxpayer to deduct an annual

exemption amount for each child under the age of 19 who is a

dependent of the taxpayer.    A “dependent” is defined in section

152(a) as an individual “over half of whose support, for the
                                 - 4
                                   4 -


calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins,

was received from the taxpayer (or is treated under subsection

(c) or (e) as received from the taxpayer)”.    In order to prevail,

petitioner must show by competent evidence: (1) The total support

provided for her son, and (2) that she provided more than half of

such total support.   The amount of total support may be

reasonably inferred from competent evidence.    Stafford v.

Commissioner, 46 T.C. 515, 518 (1966).   However, where the amount

of total support of a child during the taxable year is not shown,

and cannot be reasonably inferred from competent evidence, then

it is not possible to conclude that the taxpayer has contributed

more than one-half.   Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 515

(1971); Fitzner v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 1252, 1255 (1959).

     Although we find petitioner’s testimony credible as to the

amount she contributed to Corey’s support, the record based

solely on her contributions is incomplete.    Petitioner was unable

to reconstruct the dollar amount of Corey’s total support for the

year in issue.   It appears that Mr. and Ms. White contributed a

significant amount towards Corey’s support; however, we are not

able to determine that amount.

     By failing to establish the total amount of support provided

to Corey from all sources, we are unable to conclude that

petitioner provided more than one-half of Corey’s total support

during the year in issue.   Therefore, we hold that petitioner is
                                - 5 -


not entitled to a section 151 dependency exemption deduction for

the 1996 tax year.   Respondent is sustained on this issue.

Earned Income Credit

     The relevant parts of section 32 provide that an individual

is eligible for the earned income credit if the individual has a

qualifying child.    A “qualifying child” is a son or daughter of

the taxpayer who has not attained the age of 19 at the end of the

taxable year and shares the same principal place of abode in the

United States with the taxpayer for more than one-half of the

taxable year.

     Corey was a minor at the end of 1996, and, therefore, meets

the age requirement of section 32.      However, petitioner lived

with Corey from January through May of 1996, then moved into her

own apartment.   Because Corey resided with her for less than one-

half of 1996, petitioner fails to meet the time period

requirement of section 32.   Respondent is sustained on this

issue.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                             Decision will be entered

                                        for respondent.
