                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-24



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        GIL G. AND PATROCENIA C. SANTILLA, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2485-03S.             Filed March 9, 2004.



     Gil G. Santilla, pro se.

     Donna L. Pahl, for respondent.



     GOLDBERG, 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
                                - 2 -

effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal

income tax of $2,852 for the taxable year 2000.

     The issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled

to a dependency exemption deduction for their daughter, Beverly

Santilla (Ms. Santilla).

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

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioners resided in

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

case.

     Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for

taxable year 2000.   On their return, petitioners claimed a

dependency exemption deduction for each of their three children.

In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed all of the

claimed dependency exemption deductions.   Respondent has conceded

that petitioners are entitled to two of the deductions, but

respondent argues that petitioners are not entitled to the third

deduction for Ms. Santilla.

     Ms. Santilla was born on July 25, 1977, and turned 23 years

old during the year in issue.   During 2000, Ms. Santilla was a

student at San Diego Miramar College (SDMC).   In the spring

semester, from January 18 through May 27, Ms. Santilla completed
                                - 3 -

nine units.    In the fall semester, from August 21 through

December 23, Ms. Santilla completed six units.     According to SDMC

requirements, students with 6 units are “half-time”, students

with 9 units are “3/4 time”, and students with 12 units are

“full-time”.    Throughout the year, Ms. Santilla was employed by

Charlotte Russe, Carmel Mountain Preschool, and KinderCare

Learning Centers.    Ms. Santilla filed a Federal income tax return

for taxable year 2000 on which she reported gross income of

$4,002.

     Subject to restrictions not applicable here, a taxpayer is

entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for a dependent who

meets one of two requirements in a given taxable year.      Sec.

151(a), (c)(1).    The dependent must either (a) have gross income

during the year in an amount that is less than the exemption

amount, or (b) be a child of the taxpayer who meets the age

requirement.    Sec. 151(c)(1)(A), (B).   To meet the age

requirement, the child must be under the age of 19 at the end of

the year or a “full-time student” under the age of 24.      Sec.

151(c)(1)(B), (4).    To be a full-time student within the meaning

of the statute, the child must be enrolled “for the number of

hours or courses which is considered to be full-time attendance”

in at least some part of 5 different months of the year.      Sec.

1.151-3(b), Income Tax Regs.
                                - 4 -

     Ms. Santilla does not meet the first requirement for a

dependency exemption under section 151(c)(1)(A).      Ms. Santilla

had gross income of $4,002 during 2000, which is in excess of the

exemption amount for that year, $2,800.      Sec. 151(d); Rev. Proc.

99-42, sec. 3.09(1), 1999-2 C.B. 568, 571.      Ms. Santilla also

does not meet the second requirement for a dependency exemption

under section 151(c)(1)(B).   Although Ms. Santilla was a student

at SDMC during both the spring and fall semesters, she was not

enrolled as a full-time student at any time during the year.

SDMC requires that full-time students take 12 units during the

semester; Ms. Santilla never completed more than 9 units during

any one semester.

     Because Ms. Santilla did not meet either of the requirements

for a dependency exemption under section 151(c)(1), petitioners

are not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for her

during the taxable year 2000.   Sec. 151(a).

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                        Decision will be entered

                                under Rule 155.
