                     T.C. Memo. 2007-277



                   UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               STACY L. NOBLES, Petitioner v.
        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 22091-05.               Filed September 13, 2007.

     P filed a Federal income tax return for 2004,
claiming dependency exemption deductions, head of
household filing status, child tax credits, and an
earned income credit. R disallowed the claimed
deductions, filing status, and credits, and determined
a deficiency.

        Held: P is liable for the deficiency determined
by R.


Stacy L. Nobles, pro se.

Brooke W. Patterson, for respondent.
                                - 2 -

             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


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

for a redetermination of a deficiency.   The issues for decision

are whether petitioner is entitled to the following: (1) Two

dependency exemption deductions, (2) head of household filing

status, (3) two child tax credits, and (4) an earned income

credit.1

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated by the parties.

These stipulations, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated

herein by this reference.   At the time the petition was filed

petitioner resided in Dixon Mills, Alabama.

     In March 2004, petitioner moved into Claudette Fowlkes’2

(Ms. Fowlkes) mobile home in Dixon Mills, Alabama.    The mobile

home was owned by Ms. Fowlkes’ father, and a majority of the

household bills were in Ms. Fowlkes’ father’s name.    Ms. Fowlkes

has two children, TE and TG.3   Petitioner is not the biological




     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
     2
      Also referred to as Claudette Fowkes in the record.
     3
      The Court will refer to the minor children by their
initials.
                               - 3 -

father of TE and TG, did not have custody of TE and TG in 2004,

and was not married to Ms. Fowlkes in 2004.

     Petitioner filed his 2004 Federal income tax return as head

of household and claimed three exemptions, one for himself and

dependency exemptions for TE and TG.     Petitioner also claimed two

child tax credits and an earned income tax credit.

     The notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner on October

24, 2005.   In the notice of deficiency, respondent:

(1) Disallowed the dependency exemption deductions for TE and TG,

(2) changed petitioner’s filing status from head of household to

single and adjusted the standard deduction accordingly,

(3) disallowed the child tax credits, and (4) disallowed the

earned income credit.   As a result, respondent determined a

deficiency of $5,778.   Petitioner timely petitioned this Court,

and a trial was held on October 30, 2006, in Birmingham, Alabama.

                              OPINION

     Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the

taxpayer must maintain adequate records to substantiate the

amounts of any deductions or credits claimed.     Sec. 6001;

INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992);

sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.     As a general rule, the

Commissioner’s determination of a taxpayer’s liability in the

notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears

the burden of proving that the determination is improper.       See
                               - 4 -

Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

However, pursuant to section 7491(a)(1), the burden of proof on

factual issues that affect the taxpayer’s tax liability may be

shifted to the Commissioner where the “taxpayer introduces

credible evidence with respect to * * * such [factual] issue”.

The burden will shift only if the taxpayer has, inter alia,

complied with substantiation requirements pursuant to the

Internal Revenue Code and “cooperated with reasonable requests by

the Secretary for witnesses, information, documents, meetings,

and interviews”.   Sec. 7491(a)(2).    In the instant case,

petitioner did not comply with the substantiation requirements

and failed to present credible evidence at trial.     Accordingly,

the burden remains on petitioner.

I.   Dependency Exemption Deductions

     Section 151 allows a taxpayer to deduct a personal

exemption, as well as dependency exemptions for the taxpayer’s

dependents.   See sec. 151(a), (c).    Section 152, in 2004, defined

“dependent”, in pertinent part, to include “An individual * * *

who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has as his principal

place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a member of the

taxpayer’s household”.   Sec. 152(a)(9).    For an individual to be

considered a dependent for the taxable year of the taxpayer, he

or she must, inter alia, pass the following three tests: (1) The

individual’s gross income must be less than the exemption amount,
                               - 5 -

(2) more than half of the individual’s support must be received

from the taxpayer, and (3) the individual must have as his or her

principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and be a member

of the taxpayer’s household.   Secs. 151(c)(1)(A), 152(a), (a)(9).

The Court concludes that petitioner has not shown that he

provided more than half of TE and TG’s support for the calendar

year.

     “Support” is defined as including “food, shelter, clothing,

medical and dental care, education, and the like.”    Sec. 1.152-

1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.   Section 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income

Tax Regs., further provides:

     For purposes of determining whether or not an
     individual received, for a given calendar year, over
     half of his 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,
     including support which the individual himself
     supplied. * * *

     In other words, the support test requires the taxpayer to

establish the total support costs for the claimed individual and

that the taxpayer provided over half of that amount.     Archer v.

Commissioner, 73 T.C. 963, 967 (1980); see Cotton v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-333.     Thus, a taxpayer who cannot

establish the total amount of support costs for the claimed

individual generally may not claim that individual as a

dependent.   Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514-515 (1971);

Cotton v. Commissioner, supra.
                               - 6 -

     Petitioner, Ms. Fowlkes, TE, and TG all lived in a mobile

home owned by Ms. Fowlkes’ father.     Ms. Fowlkes testified that

she was unemployed in 2004, that TE and TG did not receive

support from their fathers in 2004, and that petitioner’s income

was the sole source of income for her and her children in 2004.

Petitioner and Ms. Fowlkes both testified that petitioner was

responsible for making the mortgage payment and paying all

household bills, even though the mortgage and a majority of the

bills were in Ms. Fowlkes’ father’s name.     However, Ms. Fowlkes

also testified that in March 2004, when petitioner moved into the

mobile home, “I was already paying the bills, trying and

struggling, and my father was helping me.”     Petitioner and

Ms. Fowlkes were unable to produce copies of checks, money

orders, or receipts to substantiate their testimony, as

Ms. Fowlkes said she had thrown the receipts away.     Ms. Fowlkes

explained that petitioner gave her cash, and she paid the

mortgage and bills in cash.

     The Court finds petitioner and Ms. Fowlkes’ testimony to be

credible as to the fact that petitioner, to his credit admirably,

provided some support for TE and TG and contributed towards

household bills.   However, the record is devoid of any reference

to the dollar amount of total support that TE and TG received,

and the dollar amount of support that petitioner provided for TE

and TG.   Ms. Fowlkes testified that her father was helping her
                                - 7 -

pay her bills at least until March 2004 when petitioner moved

into the mobile home.    Petitioner has failed to provide the Court

with any evidence establishing that he provided over half of TE’s

and TG’s support during the 2004 taxable year.    Accordingly, the

Court is constrained to conclude that petitioner is not entitled

to dependency exemption deductions for TE and TG for 2004.

II.   Head of Household Filing Status

      Section 1(b) provides a special lower tax rate for an

individual filing his Federal tax return as a head of household.

Section 2(b) defines a “head of household” as an individual

taxpayer who is:   (1) Unmarried at the close of the taxable year

and is not a surviving spouse, and (2) maintains as his home a

household which constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable

year the principal place of abode of a dependent of the taxpayer

with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under

section 151.   Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).   This Court has

already concluded that petitioner is not entitled to dependency

exemption deductions under section 151 for TE and TG.

Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to head of household

filing status.

III. Child Tax Credits

      Section 24(a) authorizes a child tax credit with respect to

each “qualifying child” of the taxpayer.   As relevant to these

particular facts, a “qualifying child” means, among other things,
                                - 8 -

an individual with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a

deduction under section 151.    Sec. 24(c)(1)(A).   This Court has

already concluded that petitioner is not entitled to dependency

exemption deductions under section 151 for TE or TG.

Accordingly, neither TE nor TG fits within the meaning of

“qualifying child” as defined by section 24(c).     The Court

concludes that petitioner is not entitled to a child tax credit

for either TE or TG.

IV.   Earned Income Credit

      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 credit allowed through a phaseout,

and section 32(b) prescribes different percentages and amounts

used to calculate the credit.    The limitation amount is based on

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

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

qualifying children.

      To be eligible to claim an earned income credit with respect

to a child, the taxpayer must establish that the child satisfies

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

Sec. 32(c)(3)(A).   Neither TE nor TG satisfy the relationship

test as they are not the children, stepchildren, descendants,

nieces or nephews, or foster children of petitioner.     See sec.

32(c)(3)(B).
                                 - 9 -

     Although petitioner is not eligible to claim an earned

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

qualifying children, he may be an “eligible individual” under

section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii).   For 2004, a taxpayer is eligible under

this subsection only if his or her adjusted gross income was less

than $11,490.   Rev. Proc. 2003-85, sec. 3.06, 2003-2 C.B. 1184,

1187.   Petitioner’s adjusted gross income for 2004 was $18,830.

Accordingly, petitioner is not eligible for an earned income

credit.

     The Court has considered all of petitioner’s contentions,

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

herein, the Court concludes that they are meritless, moot, or

irrelevant.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
