Hopkins v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 4987-69SC.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4987-69SC. |
| Citation | 55 T.C. 538 |
| Parties | HARVEY L. HOPKINS AND NITA L. HOPKINS, PETITIONERS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Harvey L. Hopkins, pro se.
J. Patrick McElroy, for the respondent.
Held: Petitioners did not prove that they contributed more than one-half of the support for four minor children during the year in issue, and therefore are not entitled to deductions for personal exemptions. Secs. 151(a) and (e) and 152(a), I.R.C. 1954. Sec. 152(e) not applicable.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' income tax for 1967 in the amount of $487.38. The sole question presented for decision is whether in 1967 petitioner Harvey L. Hopkins furnished more than one-half of the support for his four minor children of a prior marriage so as to entitle petitioners to dependency exemptions for those children in that taxable year.
Petitioners are husband and wife and were residing in Lake Park, Fla., at the time the petition herein was filed. Their joint Federal income tax return for the year 1967 was filed with the district director of internal revenue, Southeast Service Center at Chamblee, Ga. Nita L. Hopkins is a petitioner herein solely by reason of having filed a joint return with her husband for the year in issue. Harvey L. Hopkins will hereinafter be referred to as petitioner.
Petitioner was formerly married to Lorraine Hopkins Koester. The marriage ended in divorce in 1960. Four children had been born of that marriage: Stephen, Michael, John, and Janet. Custody of the children was awarded to their mother, Lorraine, and they have been in her custody since the divorce.
During 1967 petitioner's four children lived in the Newport, Ky., home of Lorraine's parents with Lorraine, her parents, and a step-brother. During that year both Lorraine and her father, John B. Reed, contributed toward the support of the petitioner's four children. Lorraine was working as a waitress, at least some of the time, and Reed was working part time and receiving a pension. The record does not show the amount of Lorraine's and Reed's incomes or their contributions to the support of the petitioner's four children during 1967. On his income tax return for 1967, petitioner stated that the amount of support furnished by him was ‘over 50%‘ and that the amount furnished by others was ‘unknown.’
Respondent concedes that petitioner contributed $20 per week to the support of his four children during 1967, a total of $1,040 for the entire year.
Two of petitioner's children visited him at his home in Florida during 1967 for 1 month, and the other two children visited him there during another month of that year. In addition to the weekly support payments totaling $1,040 petitioner claims the following amounts as contributions by him for the support of his children:
Although respondent conceded at trial that there was ‘no problem of substantiation’ with respect to the total of the amounts described above, $1,905.88, respondent has not conceded that all of the amounts, including the above-mentioned airplane fares, rental value, and utilities expense, constituted support contributions.
Petitioner offered to pay more than $20 per week for his children's support during 1967, upon certain specified conditions, but Lorraine rejected his offer. Petitioner made no increased support payments to her beyond $5 per child per week.
In his notice of deficiency to the petitioners for the taxable year 1967, respondent disallowed the deductions for dependency exemptions claimed for the four children, stating that ‘it has not been established that you furnished more than half of the support’ during the year as required by section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Petitioner contributed the total sum of $1,507 for the support of his four children by a prior marriage in 1967. The amount of total support furnished for these children or support contributions made by their other parent or by their maternal grandparents or others is unknown.
OPINIONThe question presented is whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for personal exemptions in 1967 under section 151(a) and (e), I.R.C. 1954. Section 152(a), I.R.C. 1954, defines a ‘dependent’ as a son or daughter of the taxpayer over half of whose support was received from the taxpayer. However, for the year 1967 special statutory provisions are effective with respect to dependency exemption deductions for children of divorced parents.
The general rule in the case of children of divorced parents set forth in section 152(e)(1) is that in the case of a child who ‘receives over half of his support during the year from his parents who are divorced,‘ the parent having custody is entitled to the exemption deduction. Section 152(e)(2)(B) provides a pertinent exception to this general rule as follows:
(2) SPECIAL RULE.— The child of parents described in paragraph (1) shall be treated as having received over half of his support during the calendar year from the parent not having custody if—
(B)(i) the parent not having custody provides $1,200 or more for the support of such child (or if there is more than one such child, $1,200 or more for all of such children) for the calendar year, and
(ii) the parent having custody of such child does not clearly establish that he provided more for the support of such child during the calendar year than the parent not having custody.
In order for the special statutory provisions with respect to children of divorced parents to apply, it must first be determined under section 152(e)(1) that a child received over half of his support from his or her divorced parents. The threshold question therefore, in determining which statutory provision to apply, is whether or not petitioner's children received over half of their support from petitioner and their mother, Lorraine, the divorced parents of the four children involved.
As indicated by our findings, the record before us shows that the children...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turecamo v. C. I. R., 1027
...cert. denied, 401 U.S. 910, 91 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed.2d 808 (1971); Klofta v. U. S., 333 F.Supp. 781 (N.D.Ohio 1970); Hopkins v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 538, 541 (1970). In this respect " support" is broadly defined to include "food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care, education, and the......
-
Kodak v. Commissioner
...in 1981. The burden is on petitioner to show that those amounts exceeded one-half of his support for 1981. Hopkins v. Commissioner [Dec. 30,475], 55 T.C. 538, 541 (1970); Seraydar v. Commissioner [Dec. 29,099], 50 T.C. 756, 761 (1968). Petitioner failed to show any support he provided his s......
-
Leslie v. Commissioner, Docket No. 890-70.
...he must provide the Court with convincing evidence that the amount he provided exceeded one-half of that support. Harvey L. Hopkins Dec. 30,475, 55 T.C. 538, 541 (1970). Respondent concedes that the expenditures were made by petitioner in the amounts claimed, but he has not conceded that al......
-
Henson v. Commissioner, Docket No. 6273-77
...or his former wife was in custody of Sharon for over half of the calendar year, as required by section 152(e)(1)(B). Hopkins v. Commissioner Dec. 30,475, 55 T.C. 538 (1970). Therefore, we must hold for respondent on this Issue V — Alimony. Columbus and his former wife reached a property set......