`




                     T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-133



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  DENNIS LEE CHILDRESS, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 14591-08S.           Filed September 2, 2009.



        Dennis Lee Childress, pro se.

        Ardney J. Boland III, for respondent.



     JACOBS, 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.     Pursuant to section 7463(b),

the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.     Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
                                   - 2 -

are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2006, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

       Respondent determined a $5,830 deficiency in petitioner’s

2006 Federal income tax.       After a concession by respondent, the

deficiency was reduced to $2,305, and the issues for decision

are:       (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a dependency

exemption deduction for his daughter, BSC;1 (2) whether

petitioner is entitled to head of household filing status; and

(3) whether petitioner is entitled to a child tax credit.

                                Background

       Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.       We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of

facts and accompanying exhibits.       At the time he filed his

petition, petitioner resided in Louisiana.

       Petitioner and his ex-wife, Christine Childress (Ms.

Childress), had one child, BSC, born in 2001.       Ms. Childress and

petitioner divorced in 2003.       Petitioner and Ms. Childress shared

joint custody of BSC, but Ms. Childress was given primary

custody.       Petitioner was required to pay child support to Ms.

Childress, pay for BSC’s health and dental insurance, and pay

BSC’s uninsured medical expenses.




       1
      It is the policy of this Court not to identify minors.         We
refer to Mr. Childress’s child by using initials. See Rule
27(a)(3).
                                - 3 -

     In 2006 Ms. Childress was unemployed and she moved three or

four times before finally settling with her boyfriend.    BSC, then

age 5, stayed with five or six different people during 2006,

including petitioner, Ms. Childress, BSC’s grandmothers, and

BSC’s aunts.   Petitioner estimated that BSC stayed with him

approximately one-third of the year during 2006.    He did not

estimate the amount of time BSC stayed with Ms. Childress.

     Petitioner timely filed his 2006 Federal income tax return

as a head of household, claiming (1) a dependency exemption

deduction for BSC and (2) a child tax credit of $1,000.    In the

notice of deficiency respondent disallowed the claimed dependency

exemption deduction for BSC and the child tax credit and changed

petitioner’s filing status to single.     Respondent also disallowed

some itemized deductions but conceded at trial that he had erred

in this latter regard.

                             Discussion

     Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the

Commissioner’s determinations in the notice of deficiency are

wrong.    See Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933).   In support of his position with respect to each issue

for decision, petitioner relies primarily on his testimony, which

we found to be straightforward and credible.
                               - 4 -

I.   Dependency Exemption Deduction

      Section 151(c) allows a taxpayer to deduct an annual

“exemption amount for each individual who is a dependent (as

defined in section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable year.”

As pertinent herein, section 152(a) defines “dependent” as a

“qualifying child”, sec. 152(a)(1), or a “qualifying relative”,

sec. 152(a)(2).

      A.   Qualifying Child

      Respondent concedes that BSC is petitioner’s child.    The

child of a taxpayer is a qualifying child if that child has the

same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-

half of the taxable year and meets an age restriction and self-

support prohibition that are not at issue here.    Sec. 152(c).

Petitioner admitted that during 2006 BSC did not reside with him

for more than one-half of the year.    And the record does not

indicate that BSC resided with petitioner and Ms. Childress

combined for more than one-half of the year.    Additionally, Ms.

Childress (the custodial parent) did not execute a Form 8332,

Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated

Parents, or similar declaration stating she would not claim the

dependency exemption deduction for BSC for 2006.    Therefore, BSC

is not petitioner’s qualifying child for 2006.    See Irions v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-96.
                                  - 5 -

      B.   Qualifying Relative

      For the child of a taxpayer to be a qualifying relative:

(1)   The taxpayer must provide over one-half of that child’s

support for the year, (2) the child must meet certain income

restrictions not at issue here, and (3) the child must not be the

qualifying child of another taxpayer during the year.       Sec.

152(d)(1).    In order for petitioner to establish that he provided

more than one-half of BSC’s total support during 2006, petitioner

must establish the total amount of support from all sources

provided to BSC during 2006.     See Archer v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.

963, 967 (1980); Blanco v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 512, 514-515

(1971); sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.

      “The term ‘support’ includes food, shelter, clothing,

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

1(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.     The total amount of support for

each claimed dependent provided by all sources during the year at

issue must be shown by competent evidence.      Blanco v.

Commissioner, supra at 514.      If the amount of total support is

not shown and cannot be reasonably inferred from the competent

evidence available to us, then it is not possible to conclude

that the taxpayer furnished more than one-half of the total

amount of support.    Blanco v. Commissioner, supra at 514-515;

Stafford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 515, 518 (1966).
                                - 6 -

      Petitioner provided checks evidencing child care payments he

made in 2006 totaling $3,649.   He testified (but provided no

documentation) that he made cash payments with respect to BSC’s

support.    Petitioner’s testimony was credible in this regard, but

he did not establish the total amount of BSC’s support from all

sources during 2006.

      The statute is specific with respect to the requirements a

taxpayer must meet in order to be eligible to claim an individual

as a qualifying relative.   Petitioner failed to satisfy these

requirements.    Therefore, petitioner has not carried his burden

of establishing that for 2006 BSC is his qualifying relative.

See Horsley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-47.

      C.   Conclusion

      Because petitioner has failed to establish that BSC is

either his qualifying child or a qualifying relative for purposes

of section 152, petitioner is not entitled to a dependency

exemption deduction for BSC for 2006.

II.   Head of Household Filing Status

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

who qualifies as a head of household.   As relevant herein,

section 2(b)(1) provides that an unmarried individual “shall be

considered a head of a household if, and only if” that individual

“maintains as his home a household which constitutes for more

than one-half of such taxable year the principal place of abode”
                                 - 7 -

of “a qualifying child of the individual (as defined in section

152(c) * * *)”, sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(i), or “any other person who is a

dependent of the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is entitled to a

deduction for the taxable year for such person under section

151”, sec. 2(b)(1)(A)(ii).     Because BSC is neither a qualifying

child nor a dependent of petitioner as defined in section 152(c),

petitioner is not entitled to head of household filing status for

2006.

III.    Child Tax Credit

       Subject to limitations based on adjusted gross income,

section 24(a) provides a credit with respect to each qualifying

child of the taxpayer.     Section 24(c)(1) defines the term

“qualifying child” as a “qualifying child of the taxpayer (as

defined in section 152(c)) who has not attained age 17.”

       As discussed supra p. 4, BSC is not petitioner’s qualifying

child as defined in section 152(c).       Thus, petitioner is not

entitled to the section 24(a) child tax credit with respect to

BSC for 2006.

       To reflect respondent’s concession and the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent in the amount

                                         of $2,305.
