                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-86



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              KATHLEEN LEWIS RUSSELL, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 17028-09S.              Filed July 11, 2011.



     Kathleen Lewis Russell, pro se.

     Kristin M. Timmons, for respondent.



     ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section

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



     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent 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 in petitioner’s 2007

Federal income tax of $5,922.

     The issues for decision are:

     (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption

deductions for her granddaughter and great-granddaughter.   We

hold that she is.

     (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to the earned income

credit for her granddaughter and great-granddaughter.   We hold

that she is.

     (3) Whether petitioner is entitled to the additional child

tax credit for her great-granddaughter.   We hold that she is.

     (4) Whether petitioner is entitled to head of household

filing status.   We hold that she is.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.   We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of

facts and accompanying exhibits.    Petitioner resided in the State

of Minnesota when the petition was filed.

     In early 2006 petitioner moved from Minnesota to Fresno,

California, to be closer to her granddaughter, Charell.

Petitioner rented a home in Fresno (the Fresno home), and Charell

moved in with her.
                                - 3 -

     During 2007 petitioner was employed by Kings Canyon National

Park (Kings Canyon) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California,

approximately a 1-hour-and 15-minute drive from the Fresno home.2

Petitioner paid rent to her employer through a payroll deduction

for the use of onsite lodging in which she stayed during

inclement weather when the mountain roads were impassable.    In

order to facilitate the receipt of mail when stranded in the

mountains, petitioner established a post office box in Kings

Canyon (the P.O. box); petitioner used the P.O. box as her

primary mailing address and had all of the mail from the Fresno

home forwarded to it.    Petitioner explained that she had the mail

forwarded so that during the winter months she would continue to

receive her bills as well as her Netflix and Blockbuster

subscriptions when stranded in the mountains.

     In 2007 Charell attained the age of 18 years and also gave

birth to a daughter, D.D., petitioner’s great-granddaughter.3

Following the birth of D.D., Charell stayed with her uncle,

petitioner’s son, at his home in Fresno for approximately 10

days.    On the occasions when petitioner was stuck in the




     2
        Petitioner worked at Grant Grove, which according to
http://maps.yahoo.com is approximately 65 miles from the Fresno
home.
     3
        The Court refers to minor children by their initials.
See Rule 27(a)(3).
                                - 4 -

mountains, Charell and D.D. would sometimes stay at Charell’s

uncle’s home.

      During 2007 Charell earned a de minimis amount of income

from three employers.    For each of the jobs Charell listed a

different home address, none of which was the address of the

Fresno home.    Charell used these alternate addresses to ensure

receipt of her paychecks because all of the mail from the Fresno

home was forwarded to the P.O. Box.     During Charell’s working

hours her uncle or his wife would watch D.D.

      On her 2007 Federal income tax return petitioner claimed two

dependency exemption deductions (for Charell and D.D.), the

earned income credit (in respect of Charell and D.D.), the

additional child tax credit (in respect of D.D.), and head of

household filing status.

      In a notice of deficiency, respondent denied the dependency

exemption deductions, the earned income credit, and the

additional child tax credit and changed petitioner’s filing

status to single.

                             Discussion4

A.   Dependency Exemption Deductions

      In general, a taxpayer may claim a dependency exemption

deduction “for each individual who is a dependent (as defined in



      4
          We decide this case without regard to the burden of
proof.
                                   - 5 -

section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable year.”       Sec. 151(a),

(c).       As relevant herein, section 152(a) defines a dependent to

include a “qualifying child”.       A qualifying child must, inter

alia, share the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for

more than one-half of the year in issue.5      Sec. 152(c)(1)(B).

       Petitioner claims that she is entitled to dependency

exemption deductions for her granddaughter and great-

granddaughter because they lived with her in the Fresno home.

       Respondent contends that petitioner and her granddaughter

and great-granddaughter did not share the same principal place of

abode for more than one-half of the year in issue.

       We find that petitioner and her granddaughter and great-

granddaughter did share the same principal place of abode for

more than one-half of the year in issue.       See sec. 152(c)(1)(B).

Petitioner was not stranded in the mountains so much so that the

Fresno home failed to be petitioner’s home; likewise, Charell and

D.D. did not spend so much time with the uncle such that the

Fresno home failed to be Charell’s and D.D.’s home.       Therefore,

petitioner’s granddaughter and great-granddaughter are qualifying

children under section 152(c).

       Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to

dependency exemption deductions for her granddaughter and great-

granddaughter for 2007.


       5
            No other requirement is at issue in the instant case.
                                  - 6 -

B.   Earned Income Tax Credit

      Section 32(a)(1) permits an eligible individual an earned

income credit (EIC) against that individual’s tax liability.         As

pertinent here, the term “eligible individual” is defined to mean

“any individual who has a qualifying child for the taxable year”.

Sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(i).6      The amount of the credit is determined

according to percentages that vary depending on whether the

taxpayer has one qualifying child or two or more qualifying

children.    Sec. 32(b).    The percentages increase if a taxpayer

has two qualifying children as opposed to one.      Id.   Thus, if

petitioner has two qualifying children, the EIC is $4,716; with

one qualifying child, the EIC is $2,853.      See Rev. Proc. 2006-53,

sec. 3.07(1), 2006-2 C.B. 996, 1000.

      To be eligible to claim an EIC with respect to a “qualifying

child”, a taxpayer must establish, inter alia, that the child had

the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than

one-half of the taxable year.7      Secs. 32(c)(3), 152(c)(1)(B).




      6
        An eligible individual also includes an individual who
does not have a qualifying child. See sec. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii).
However, an EIC is available to such an individual only if his or
her adjusted gross income is less than $12,590. See Rev. Proc.
2006-53, sec. 3.07(1), 2006-2 C.B. 996, 1000. Because
petitioner’s adjusted gross income exceeded that amount in 2007,
petitioner is not entitled to an EIC for that year without a
qualifying child.
      7
          See supra note 5.
                               - 7 -

      We previously concluded that petitioner and her

granddaughter and great-granddaughter shared the same principal

place of abode for more than one-half of the year in issue.

Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the EIC she claimed on her

2007 Federal income tax return.

C.   Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit

      Section 24(a) allows taxpayers a credit against tax imposed

for each qualifying child.   The term “qualifying child” is

defined by section 24(c)(1) to mean a qualifying child of the

taxpayer as defined in section 152(c) who has not attained the

age of 17.   Section 24(d) provides that a portion of the credit

may be refundable, which portion is commonly referred to as the

additional child tax credit.

      Petitioner claimed the additional child tax credit on her

2007 Federal income tax return for D.D.   We have previously

concluded that D.D. is a qualifying child as defined in section

152(c).   Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to the

additional child tax credit for D.D. as claimed on the return.

D.   Head of Household Filing Status

      As relevant herein, section 2(b)(1)(A)(i) provides that a

taxpayer qualifies as head of household if she maintains as her

home a household that constitutes the principal place of abode of

a qualifying child for more than one-half of the taxable year.
                                 - 8 -

     We have previously held that petitioner is entitled to

dependency exemption deductions for her granddaughter and great-

granddaughter for 2007 because each is a qualifying child.

Accordingly, petitioner qualifies for head of household filing

status for 2007.

                           Conclusion

     We have considered all of the arguments made by respondent,

and, to the extent that we have not specifically addressed those

arguments, we conclude that they are without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for petitioner.
