                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001–160



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          RANBIR SINGH & BALVINDER KAUR, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5032-00S.            Filed October 10, 2001.



     Ranbir Singh, pro se.

     Andrew J. Wyman, for respondent.



     DINAN, 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 years in issue.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal

income taxes of $960 and $1,358 for the taxable years 1996 and

1997.

     The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioners are

entitled to a section 21 child care credit in each of the years

1996 and 1997; and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to a

dependency exemption deduction for Heche Singh in 1997.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioners resided in

San Jose, California, on the date the petition was filed in this

case.

     During the years in issue, several children resided with

petitioners.   One of these children, Heche, who is petitioner

husband’s (Ranbir’s) daughter, was placed in foster care on

November 8, 1996, and remained in foster care through the end of

1996 and through all of 1997.   In both 1996 and 1997, petitioner

wife (Balvinder) cared for the children at home in addition to

working a graveyard shift.   Balvinder’s mother, Jagdish, visited

petitioners in the United States in 1996 through May 3, and then

again in 1997 from June 26 through the end of the year.   During

these periods she helped care for the children.   Before, during,

and after the years in issue, petitioners spent approximately
                                - 3 -

$13,000 to $15,000 on expenses incurred by Jagdish for travel and

while in the United States.

     Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for each

of the years 1996 and 1997.    In each year, petitioners claimed a

child care credit in the amount of $960 for expenses of $4,980

related to care allegedly provided by Caclia G. Bravo.

Respondent disallowed the credit in each year and disallowed a

dependency exemption deduction which petitioners claimed in 1997

for Heche.

     The first issue for decision is whether petitioners are

entitled to a section 21 child care credit for each of the years

in issue.    Subject to requirements not applicable here, a

taxpayer is entitled to a credit under section 21(a)(1) in an

amount equal to a portion of certain child care and related

expenses paid during the taxable year.

     Petitioners argue that the expenses they incurred in

connection with Jagdish are child care expenses which fall under

section 21.    Petitioners did not identify Caclia G. Bravo or

otherwise explain why the care provider listed on the return is a

person other than Jagdish, but respondent stated that petitioners

claim to have used this person’s name, address, and Social

Security number because they did not have a Social Security

number for Jagdish.
                                - 4 -

     Petitioners are not entitled to a child care credit in

either of the years in issue.   First, Balvinder was the main care

provider for the children, and Jagdish assisted her only during

the periods of time she was in the country.   Second, petitioners

have not shown that they paid any child care expenses other than

the expenses incurred in connection with Jagdish.   These are

clearly personal and family expenses and as such are not

deductible pursuant to section 262(a).   Finally, the false

information provided on each of the returns for the years in

issue--with an identical amount of expenses in each year which

was just enough to provide petitioners with the maximum allowable

credit--persuades us that the alleged expenses had no connection

with any services provided by Jagdish.

     The second issue for decision is whether petitioners are

entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for Heche in 1997.

Subject to limitations not applicable here, a deduction is

allowed under section 151(a) for each dependent of a taxpayer.

Sec. 151(a) and (c)(1).   A taxpayer’s child is a dependent of the

taxpayer only if the taxpayer provides over half of the child’s

support for the taxable year.   Sec. 152(a)(1).

     Heche was in foster care throughout all of 1997 and,

although petitioners made payments for her support after that

year, they made no such payments in the year in issue.   We
                                 - 5 -

therefore sustain respondent’s disallowance of the dependency

exemption deduction for 1997.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent.
