                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-38



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                CHAMICKA L. RUBEN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1371-07S.                Filed April 16, 2008.



     Chamicka L. Ruben, pro se.

     Joel McMahan, 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 2005,
the taxable year at 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 Federal

income tax for 2005 of $2,662 on the basis of the disallowance of

a claimed dependency exemption deduction, head of household

filing status, and an earned income credit (EIC).        After

concessions by respondent,2 the only issue that remains is

petitioner’s entitlement to an EIC for a minor living with her,

K.W.3       For the reasons discussed below, we hold that she is not

entitled to the EIC.

                                Background

        At the time the petition was filed, Chamicka L. Ruben

(petitioner) resided in Florida.

        In 2005, petitioner was working as a car detailer and living

with T.K. and T.K.’s two children.4        Petitioner is not related to

T.K. or to the children by blood or marriage.        T.K. did not work,

and petitioner provided all of the support for the children.

        When petitioner filed her Federal income tax return for


        2
        Respondent conceded both the dependency exemption
deduction and the head of household filing status issues;
respondent also conceded that petitioner is entitled to an earned
income credit without regard to a qualifying child of $296.
        3
        It is the Court’s practice to refer to minors only by
their initials.
        4
        As T.K. is not a party to these proceedings, and in the
interest of privacy, T.K. is referred to only by initials.
                                 - 3 -

2005, she claimed an EIC for K.W., one of T.K.’s children.

                            Discussion

     An eligible individual is entitled to an EIC against the

individual’s income tax liability, subject to certain

requirements.   Sec. 32(a)(1).   Different percentages and amounts

are used to calculate the credit depending on whether the

eligible individual has no qualifying children, one qualifying

child, or two or more qualifying children.   Sec. 32(b).

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

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

bears one of the defined relationships to the taxpayer outlined

in section 152(c)(2).5   See secs. 32(c)(3)(A), 152(c)(1)(A).

     Section 152(c)(2) defines “qualifying child” as:

          (A) a child of the taxpayer or a descendant
     of such a child, or

          (B) a brother, sister, stepbrother, or
     stepsister of the taxpayer or a descendant of any
     such relative.

     Although petitioner satisfies other requirements for being

entitled to an EIC for K.W., see sec. 152(c)(1)(B) and (C),

petitioner’s relationship to K.W. is not one of the eligible

relationships specified by the statute, and petitioner is


     5
        Although it used to be that, under certain circumstances,
an EIC could be claimed for a child that a taxpayer “cared for as
[her] own”, the statute was amended; and now only a qualifying
child or a foster child, see sec. 152(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C),
enables a taxpayer to claim an EIC.
                              - 4 -

therefore not entitled to claim an EIC for him.

                            Conclusion

     For the reasons discussed above, we sustain respondent’s

determination that petitioner is not entitled to an earned income

credit for K.W.

     To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as

respondent’s concessions,



                                           Decision will be entered

                                      under Rule 155.
