                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-145



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                 BETTIE J. INGRAM, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 17966-05S.               Filed November 19, 2008.



     Bettie J. Ingram, pro se.

     Lynette Mayfield, for respondent.



     WELLS, 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.1   Pursuant to section

7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any




     1
      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-

other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent

for any other case.

        Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,340 in petitioner’s

Federal income tax for 2004.     The issues we must decide are:

(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to two dependency exemption

deductions for her minor grandnephew and adult nephew; (2)

whether petitioner is entitled to claim the earned income credit

as an individual with two qualifying children; and (3) whether

petitioner is entitled to claim the child tax credit and the

additional child tax credit.

                              Background

        At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in

Tennessee.

        On or about April 15, 2005, petitioner electronically filed

a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for taxable year

2004.

        DLH,2 petitioner’s grandnephew, was born in 2000, and

Donnell Hardin, petitioner’s nephew, was born in 1978.     During

2004, petitioner lived with Roger Wooten and they shared

household expenses equally.     During 2004, petitioner’s mother

took DLH to medical appointments and picked up prescriptions for




        2
      The Court refers to minor children by their initials.       See
Rule 27(a)(3).
                                -3-

DLH using petitioner’s mother’s address for medical treatment and

pharmacy purposes.

                            Discussion

Dependency Exemptions

     Section 151(c)(1) provides that an exemption is allowed for

each person who is a dependent of a taxpayer if the following

requirements are met:   (a) The individual for whom an exemption

is claimed is a dependent (as defined in section 152(a)), which

includes a son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, sibling, parent

or other ancestor, stepparent, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle,

certain relatives-in-law, or an individual other than the

taxpayer’s spouse, who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has

as his principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a

member of the taxpayer’s household; (b) over one-half of the

individual’s support for the taxable year is received from the

taxpayer; and (c) the individual’s gross income is less than the

exemption amount or the individual is the taxpayer’s child who is

younger than age 19 or is a student younger than age 24.

     To be entitled to a dependency exemption deduction, a

taxpayer must establish the total support costs expended on

behalf of the claimed dependent from all sources for the year,

and must demonstrate that the taxpayer has provided over one-half

of that amount.   Daya v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-360; sec.

1.152-1(a)(2)(I), Income Tax Regs.
                                 -4-

     Although Donnell Hardin is petitioner’s nephew, petitioner

has not offered credible evidence establishing that DLH resided

with her during 2004.    Petitioner offered no credible evidence

from contemporaneous sources of the address of DLH for 2004.

Petitioner has failed to establish and take into account the full

amount of income from all sources into her household for 2004 and

the expenditure from those sources and thus is unable to

establish whether or not any amounts of support provided by her

during 2004 constituted more than one-half of the support for the

claimed dependents.    On the basis of the record in the instant

case, we hold that petitioner has not shown that she is entitled

to a dependency exemption deduction for DLH or Donnell Hardin for

taxable year 2004.

Earned Income Credit

     On her 2004 return petitioner claimed an earned income

credit based on DLH as a qualifying child.    Section 32(c)(1)(A)

provides that, for purposes of qualifying for the earned income

credit, an “eligible individual”, with certain exceptions not

applicable in the instant case, is an individual who has a

“qualifying child” for the taxable year.

     A qualifying child is defined as an individual’s child,

stepchild, sibling, stepsibling, a descendant of any of those

individuals, or an eligible foster child (placed with the

individual by an authorized agency) whom the individual cares for
                                -5-

as their own child; who is under the age of 19; and who has the

same principal place of abode as the individual for more than

one-half of the taxable year.   Sec. 32(c)(3).      The age test and

relationship test are not in dispute.     However, petitioner has

not produced credible evidence that DLH resided with petitioner

for more than one-half of taxable year 2004.     On the basis of the

record in the instant case, we hold that petitioner has not shown

that she is entitled to the earned income credit for taxable year

2004.

Child Tax Credit

     Subject to limitations based on adjusted gross income, a

taxpayer is entitled to a child tax credit with regard to each

qualifying child of the taxpayer.     Sec. 24(a).   A qualifying

child for purposes of the child tax credit is a child:      (a) For

whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for a dependency

exemption; (b) who is under the age of 17; and (c) who bears a

relationship to the taxpayer as set forth in section 32(c)(3)(B).

Sec. 24(c).   The age and relationship tests are not in dispute in

the instant case.   However, as petitioner has not shown that she

is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction with regard to

DLH, petitioner is not entitled to the child tax credit on the

basis of him being a qualifying child.
                                 -6-

Consequently, we hold that petitioner has failed to establish

that she is entitled to the child tax credit for taxable year

2004.

     We have considered all of the parties’ arguments and

contentions, and to the extent they are not discussed in this

opinion, we conclude that they are without merit, irrelevant, or

unnecessary to reach.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
