                        T.C. Memo. 2003-211



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 MARVINA J. DAIL, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12474-02.               Filed July 16, 2003.


     Marvina J. Dail, pro se.

     Clare J. Brooks, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     THORNTON, Judge:   Respondent determined a $1,941 deficiency

in petitioner’s 2000 Federal income tax.     The issues for decision

are whether petitioner is entitled to claim her son as a

dependent and whether petitioner is entitled to head of household

filing status.
                               - 2 -

     The parties have stipulated some facts, which we

incorporate herein by this reference.     When she petitioned this

Court, petitioner resided in Baltimore, Maryland.

                            Background

     On October 31, 1994, petitioner was granted a divorce from

her husband, Norris Dail (Mr. Dail).     The divorce judgment

granted petitioner and Mr. Dail joint custody of their minor son,

Norris Rashid Dail (Norris), and ordered that Norris was to

reside with Mr. Dail from Monday morning through Thursday evening

at 6 p.m., and with petitioner from Thursday evening through

Monday morning.

     On her 2000 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,

petitioner claimed Norris as her dependent and filed as head of

household.

     In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that

petitioner was not entitled to claim Norris as her dependent and

changed her filing status to single.

                            Discussion

1.   Dependency Exemption Deduction

     A taxpayer is allowed a dependency exemption deduction for

each dependent.   Sec. 151(c)(1).1   To qualify as the taxpayer’s

dependent, an individual must, among other things, receive (or be



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue.
                                 - 3 -

treated as receiving) over half of his or her support from the

taxpayer.    Sec. 152(a).   A special rule generally treats a child

of divorced parents as receiving over half of his or her support

from the parent having custody for the greater portion of the

year.   See sec. 152(e)(1); sec. 1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs.

This special rule applies only if the child both (1) receives

over half of his or her support during the year from his or her

parents and (2) is in the custody of one or both parents for more

than half the year.    Sec. 152(e)(1).   In the event of “split”

custody, as is the case here, custody is “deemed to be with the

parent who, as between both parents, has the physical custody of

the child for the greater portion of the calendar year.”      Sec.

1.152-4(b), Income Tax Regs.

     Respondent contests only whether Norris was in petitioner’s

physical custody for more than half of 2000.     Petitioner

testified credibly that during 2000 she had physical custody of

Norris each week from 6 p.m. Thursday evening until 8 a.m. Monday

morning, except that he was consistently with her for 2 to 3

weeks during the summer, when she took him to Florida to visit

her ailing mother.    On the instant record, we find that

petitioner had physical custody of Norris for the greater portion

of 2000.    Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to

claim Norris as her dependent for 2000.
                              - 4 -

2.   Head-of-Household Filing Status

     Petitioner maintained her home as Norris’s principal place

of abode for more than half of 2000.    Accordingly, petitioner is

entitled to head of household filing status for 2000.    See secs.

1(b) and 2(b)(1); sec. 1.2-2(b)(1) and (b)(3)(i), Income Tax

Regs.


                                      Decision will be entered

                              for petitioner.
