                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-144



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            RIGOBERTO CAMPOS HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5488-02S.              Filed October 1, 2003.


     Rigoberto Campos Hernandez, pro se.

     Karen Nicholson Sommers, for respondent.



     PAJAK, 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 year in issue.

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,168 in petitioner’s
                                - 2 -

2000 Federal income tax.    This Court must decide: (1) Whether

petitioner is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for

his son; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to file as head of

household instead of single; (3) whether petitioner is entitled

to the child care credit; and (4) whether petitioner is entitled

to the earned income credit.

     Petitioner resided in San Diego, California, at the time he

filed his petition.

     Petitioner is the father of Luis Alfaro (Luis), born on

December 28, 1993.    Francisca Alfaro is the mother of Luis.

Petitioner and Francisca Alfaro were not married.

     Petitioner claimed a dependency exemption deduction with

respect to Luis.   Respondent disallowed that deduction.

     Section 7491 does not apply because petitioner did not

substantiate his deductions.

     Section 151 allows a taxpayer to deduct an annual exemption

amount for each dependent, as defined in section 152.     Section

152(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a dependent includes a

son over half of whose support in the taxable year was received

from the taxpayer.    Sec. 152(a)(1).   In determining whether or

not an individual received over half of his or her support from

the taxpayer, there shall be taken into account the amount of

support received from the taxpayer as compared to the entire

amount of support which the individual received from all sources,
                                  - 3 -

including support which the individual himself or herself

supplied.    Sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.   Support

includes food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care,

education, and the like.    Id.

     To establish that petitioner provided more than one-half of

the claimed dependent’s support, he must first show by competent

evidence the total amount of support furnished by all sources for

the year in issue.    Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514

(1971).   Petitioner has not offered competent evidence of the

total amount of support provided for his son in 2000.     Aside from

his testimony, petitioner presented no evidence to corroborate or

substantiate any of the claimed support expenses, other than the

child support payments.    Without proper substantiation, the Court

cannot conclude from the record that more than one-half of the

support of the claimed dependent was provided by petitioner.

Thus, petitioner has failed to establish that he provided over

half of the total support for his son.    Accordingly, we hold that

petitioner is not entitled to claim his son as a dependent under

section 151.    Respondent’s determination as to this issue is

sustained.

     Respondent determined that petitioner’s filing status should

be changed from head of household to single.    Section 2(b), in

relevant part, defines head of household as an unmarried taxpayer

who maintains as his home a household which constitutes for more
                                  - 4 -

than one-half of such taxable year the principal place of abode

of a son.   Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i).    Petitioner did not prove that his

son had the same principal place of abode for more than one-half

of 2000.    The son had the mother’s address on his school records.

Petitioner paid court-ordered child support for his son to

Francisca Alfaro, the mother.     The Court gave petitioner an

additional 30 days to submit support for his position.

Petitioner failed to provide such support.     Because we find that

Luis did not have the same principal place of abode as petitioner

for more than one-half the year in 2000, we find that petitioner

may not claim head of household filing status.     We sustain

respondent’s determination as to this issue.

     Petitioner claimed a child tax credit of $223 for 2000,

which respondent disallowed.    Section 24(a) allows a child tax

credit for each qualifying child of the taxpayer.     A “qualifying

child” means any individual if the taxpayer is allowed a

deduction under section 151 with respect to the individual for

the taxable year, the individual has not attained the age of 17

by the close of the year, and the individual bears a relationship

to the taxpayer described in section 32(c)(3)(B).     Sec. 24(c).

In this case, because petitioner is not allowed a deduction under

section 151 for his son, the son is not a qualifying child.

Petitioner is not entitled to claim the child tax credit in 2000.

We sustain respondent’s determination as to this issue.
                               - 5 -

     Petitioner claimed an earned income credit of $2,219 for

2000, which respondent disallowed.     Section 32(a) provides for an

earned income credit in the case of an eligible individual.

Section 32(c)(1)(A)(i), in pertinent part, defines an “eligible

individual” as an individual who has a qualifying child for the

taxable year.   A qualifying child is one who satisfies a

relationship test, a residency test, and an age test.       Sec.

32(c)(3).   To satisfy the residency test in this case, the son

must have the same principal place of abode as petitioner for

more than one-half of the year.   Sec. 32(c)(3)(A).      Because we

found that Luis did not have the same principal place of abode as

petitioner for more than one-half of 2000, we sustain

respondent’s determination as to the earned income credit.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
