                  T.C. Memo. 2008-274



                UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            ARRIANE REDMOND, Petitioner v.
     COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 22804-07.                 Filed December 9, 2008.



     R determined a deficiency in P’s 2005 Federal income
tax after disallowing P’s claimed earned income credit.

     Held: P is not entitled to the earned income credit and
is liable for the deficiency.



Jonathan P. Decatorsmith, for petitioner.

Joseph T. Ferrick, for respondent.
                               - 2 -

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WHERRY, Judge:   This case is before the Court on a petition

for redetermination of a deficiency that respondent determined

for petitioner’s 2005 tax year.   The issue for decision is

whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts and accompanying exhibits are hereby incorporated by

reference into our findings.

     Petitioner filed her 2005 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, and claimed head of household filing status and three

exemptions, one for herself and dependency exemptions for two

minor children.   Petitioner also claimed a child tax credit, an

additional child tax credit, and an earned income tax credit.

Her 2005 Form 1040 reflects that she had $22,411 in adjusted

gross income.

     In a notice of deficiency dated August 14, 2007,

respondent disallowed the earned income credit.1    As a result,

respondent determined a deficiency of $2,704.    Petitioner then

filed a timely petition with this Court.     At the time she filed

her petition, petitioner resided in Illinois.     A trial was held

on September 22, 2008, in Chicago, Illinois.


     1
      In the notice of deficiency, respondent did not disallow
any of the exemptions or other credits claimed by petitioner.
                               - 3 -

                            Discussion

     The Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency is

generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving that the determination is improper.   See Rule 142(a);2

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).   But see sec.

7491(a).   Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent

was incorrect in determining that petitioner was not entitled to

an earned income credit for 2005.

     Section 32(a)(1) allows an eligible individual an earned

income credit against the individual’s income tax liability.

Section 32(a)(2) limits the amount of the credit allowed, and

section 32(b) contains different percentages and amounts used to

determine the credit.   The limitation amount is based on the

amount of the taxpayer’s earned income and whether the taxpayer

has no qualifying children, one qualifying child, or two or more

qualifying children.

     In order to claim an earned income credit with respect to a

child, the taxpayer must demonstrate that the child is a

“qualifying child” of the taxpayer as defined in section 152(c).

See sec. 32(c)(3).   Although section 152(c) sets forth multiple

requirements that must be satisfied in order to establish that an

individual is a qualifying child, the only requirement at issue


     2
      The Rule reference is to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure. Section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the tax year at issue.
                               - 4 -

in this case is the requirement that the qualifying child be an

individual “who bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in

paragraph (2)”.   Sec. 152(c)(1)(A).   The relationship requirement

is satisfied if the individual is the taxpayer’s child, brother,

sister, stepbrother, or stepsister, or a descendant of any of

them.3   Sec. 152(c)(2).

     Petitioner argues that she is entitled to the earned income

credit because the children with respect to whom she claimed the

earned income credit were those of her half sister, Deborah Ann

Scott (Ms. Scott).   When petitioner learned that Ms. Scott was

battling cancer, petitioner admirably allowed Ms. Scott’s two

minor children to move in with her.    Petitioner supported the

children throughout 2005 and until Ms. Scott’s health improved

and they moved out to rejoin Ms. Scott in early 2006.

     According to petitioner, she and Ms. Scott share a common

father, a man named Wade Riggs.   Petitioner has provided copies

of her and Ms. Scott’s birth certificates.    Unfortunately,

petitioner’s birth certificate lists a mother but not a father.

Ms. Scott’s lists neither a mother nor a father.

     Respondent’s position is that the children are not

qualifying children because petitioner has not proven that she

and Ms. Scott share a common father.    Respondent has produced a



     3
      The terms “brother” and “sister” include half brothers and
half sisters. Sec. 152(f)(4).
                              - 5 -

response to an “IMF MCC TRANSCRIPT-NUMIDENT REQUEST” that lists

“Howard Scott” as Ms. Scott’s father and “Margaret Foster” as her

mother.4

     We do not question the sincerity of petitioner’s belief that

she and Ms. Scott are half sisters, and we commend her for caring

for Ms. Scott’s children in 2005.   Nevertheless, she has not

demonstrated that respondent was incorrect in determining that

she is not entitled to an earned income credit for 2005.

Although the NUMIDENT record was created on December 13, 1977,

when Ms. Scott was 13 years old, and its accuracy is not entirely




     4
      “IMF MCC stands for ‘Individual Master File-Martinsburg
Computing Center’.” Wagner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-180
n.3. NUMIDENT is a database maintained by the Social Security
Administration (SSA) that contains information provided by
applicants for Social Security numbers. See Aramark Facility
Servs. v. Serv. Employees Intl. Union, Local 1877, 530 F.3d 817,
826 (9th Cir. 2008); Teschner v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 382 F.
Supp. 2d 662, 665 n.2 (D.N.J. 2005). “The NUMIDENT record is
created at the time Social Security numbers are assigned, and
includes the assignee’s name, date and place of birth, and names
of the parents.” Teschner v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., supra at 665
n.2.

     Although there can be more than one Deborah Ann Scott, we
note that the birth date of Feb. 19, 1964, and the place of
birth, “Chicago Cook IL”, shown in the NUMIDENT record are
identical to those reflected in the birth certificate provided by
petitioner. We are therefore confident that the Deborah Ann
Scott referred to in the NUMIDENT record is the same person
petitioner refers to.
                               - 6 -

certain,5 it is the only documentary evidence of record regarding

the identity of Ms. Scott’s father.

     Petitioner’s sincere testimony to the contrary is based

solely on what others have told her, as she is significantly

younger than Ms. Scott.   In the end, for purposes of this

proceeding, petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of

the evidence that she and Ms. Scott are half sisters.

Consequently, Ms. Scott’s children were not qualifying children

when petitioner supported them in 2005, and petitioner is not

entitled to an earned income credit for that year.

     Finally, we note that a taxpayer not eligible for an earned

income credit under section 32(c)(1)(A)(i) for having one or more

qualifying children may be an “eligible individual” under section

32(c)(1)(A)(ii).   For 2005 a taxpayer who files a return (as

petitioner did) as head of household is eligible under this

clause only if the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income is less than


     5
      To begin with, it is unclear if (and, if so, how) the SSA
verified that Howard Scott was Ms. Scott’s father, especially in
light of the fact that the copy of Ms. Scott’s birth certificate
that is a part of the record in this case is devoid of that
information. Also, as of December 2006, “By SSA’s own estimates,
approximately 17.8 million of the 430 million entries in * * *
NUMIDENT * * * contain errors”. Aramark Facil. Servs. v. Service
Employees International Union, supra at 826. While the estimate
reported at the referenced Web site identified the errors as
relating to “names, dates of birth, citizenship status and/or
death indications”, we assume that parental information is
similarly sometimes incorrect. See Social Security
Administration, Office of Inspector General, Congressional
Response Report, Accuracy of the Social Security Administration’s
Numident File (2006).
                                 - 7 -

$11,750.   Rev. Proc. 2004-71, sec. 3.06, 2004-2 C.B. 970, 973.

Because petitioner’s adjusted gross income for 2005 exceeded

$11,750, she is not eligible for an earned income credit for 2005

under section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii).

     The Court has considered all of petitioner’s contentions,

arguments, requests, and statements.     To the extent not discussed

herein, we conclude that they are meritless, moot, or irrelevant.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
