                       T.C. Memo. 1998-73



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                  MEHRAN ETESAM, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 27439-96.                Filed February 23, 1998.


     Mehran Etesam, pro se.

     Gwendolyn C. Walker, for respondent.


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182.1

     Respondent determined a deficiency and an addition to tax

under section 6651(a) in petitioner's 1993 Federal income tax in

the respective amounts of $425 and $396.05.    At the time the

petition was filed, petitioner resided in Swainsboro, Georgia.


     1
         All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the year at issue, and Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 2 -

     The only issue is whether petitioner is entitled to a joint

filing status.

     The facts may be summarized as follows.     Prior to 1993,

petitioner and Maliheh Chasevi (Ms. Chasevi) were married, lived

together in Florida, and had filed joint Federal income tax

returns in the previous years.    In April 1993, they separated,

and petitioner moved to Georgia.    In late 1993 or early 1994, Ms.

Chasevi inquired whether petitioner would file a joint return

with her for the 1993 taxable year.      Petitioner agreed, and Ms.

Chasevi sent her Form W-2 from her employer to him.

     In April 1994, petitioner could not pay the amount due and

requested an extension of time for filing the 1993 return.

Sometime later, Ms. Chasevi questioned him about whether a return

had been filed.   Petitioner got "upset" but did tell her that he

had not filed, and then told her to file her own return.     Ms.

Chasevi filed a separate return for the taxable year 1993 in

April 1995.   Shortly thereafter petitioner filed a purported

joint return for the taxable year 1993.     Ms. Chasevi did not sign

the return.   Petitioner signed her name to the return.    Ms.

Chasevi did not know that the purported joint return had been

filed until October 1995, and she has not ratified the purported

joint return in any fashion.

     Upon examination of the purported joint return filed by

petitioner, respondent disallowed the dependency exemption

claimed for Ms. Chasevi, removed her income from the gross
                                - 3 -

income, reduced the standard deduction, and determined the tax on

the basis of the filing status of married-filing-separately.      If

we determine that petitioner was not entitled to use the joint

filing status, he does not dispute the other adjustments.

     Section 6013(a) allows a husband and wife to file a joint

return.   Both the husband and wife must intend that a return

filed be treated as a joint return, and the question of their

intent is a question of fact.    Estate of Campbell v.

Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1, 12 (1971); Springmann v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1987-474.   While Ms. Chasevi may have intended to file

a joint return for 1993 at some time during 1993 or early 1994,

by the time petitioner filed the return in 1995, she clearly did

not intend that return to be a joint return.    Indeed, she had

already filed a separate return.

     Petitioner argues that the communications between his wife

and him during late 1993 or early 1994 gave rise to a binding

contract with Ms. Chasevi to the effect that they would file a

joint return.   While we have grave doubts concerning the

existence of any such contract under the circumstances here, even

if Ms. Chasevi breached that contract, the fact remains that when

the purported joint return was filed, she did not intend that

return to be a joint return.    If there were a contract, that

would be a matter between petitioner and Ms. Chasevi.    Whatever

the resolution of that dispute, it would not affect the result
                               - 4 -

here.   Petitioner is not entitled to claim the joint filing

status, and respondent's determinations are sustained.

                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
