Kathleen Lewis Russell, Petitioner

T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-86 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KA'IHLEEN LEWIS RUSSELL, Petitioner v. COMMIS:sIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 17028-095.

Filed July 11, -2011:

Kathleen Lewis Russell, pro se.

Kristin M . Timmons , f or ,respondent .

ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:

This case was -heard pursuant to the provisions of section 746 of the IInternal Revenue Code in effect when the petitio'n.was-filed.¹ Pursuant to section 7463 (b) , the decision to be entered is· not reviewable by any Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Interna Revenue Code in effect for the year i of Practice and Procedure.

issue, and all Rule r ferences are to the Tax Couit Rulés other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax of $5, 922 The issues for decision are:

(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for her granddaughter and great-granddaughter.

We hold that she is.

(2) Whether petitioner is entitled to the -earned income credit for her granddaughter and great-granddaughter.

We hold that she is .

(3) Whether petitioner is entitled to the additional child tax credit for her great-granddaughter.

We holds that she is.

(4) Whether petitioner is entitled to head of household filing status.

We hold that she iss a Background Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found.

We incorporate by; references the parties' stipulat .on of facts and accompanying exhibits. Petitioner,resided in the State of Minnesota when theepetition was filed.

In early 2006 petitioner moved froni MinnesotantoeFresno, California, to be closer to her granddaughter Charell.

Petitioner rented a home in Fèesno (the Fresno home) , and Charell moved in with her.

During 2007 petitioner was employed by Kings Canyon National Park (Kings Canyon) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, approximately a 3-hour-and 15-minute drive from the Fresno home.² Petitioner paid rent to her employer through a payroll deduction for the use of or.site lodging in which she stayed during inc.lement weather when the mo ntain roads were impassable.

In order to facilitste the receipt of mail when stranded in the mountains, petitioner establióhed a post office box in Kings Canyon (the P.O. box); petitioner used the P.O. box as her primary mailing address and had all of the, mail from the Fresno home forwarded tc it.- Petitióner explained that she had the mail forwarded so,tha during the winter months she would continue to receive her bill as well as her Netflix and Blockbuster subscriptions wh n stranded i the mountains.

In 2007 Charell attained the age of 18 years and also gave birth to a daughter, D.:D., petitioner's great-granddaughter.³ Following the birth of D.D., harell stayed with her uncle, petitioner's son, at his home :ba Fresno for approximately 10 days.

On the occasions when petitioner was stuck in the 2 r Petitioner worked at Grant Grove, which according to http://maps.yahoo.com is approximately 65 miles from the Fresno home.

The Court refers to minor children by, their initials.

See Ruie 27(a) (3).

mountains, • Charell and D.D. would sorhetimes stay at Charell' s uncle's home.

During 2007 Charell earried, a de Íninimis amount of innome from three employers.

For each-of the jobs ChaeNil listed a different-home a'ddresis, none of 'which was thes address of the Fresno home ." Charell used these alternate addresses to ensure¡ receipt of her paychecks° because' all- of the mail- from thei Fresno home was forwarded to the'P.O."Box.

'During Charell's working hour s her" unc le or his wi f e would wat ch D . D .

' On her 2007- Federal'income tax return petitioner claimed two dependenci exemption deductiâns (for Cha:éell and D.D.), the earned income credit (in resþect of Charell and D.D.), the additional child ta credit (in respect of D.D.)", and head of household f iling status .

In à riotice of deficiency, respondent denied the dependency exemption deductions, thë- êarned income credit, and the additional child tax céedit and changed petitioner's filing status'to single.

A. Dependency Exemption Deddctions Discussior 4 In general, a taxpayer túay claim a dependency exempt on deduction "for each individual who is a dependent (as defined in

section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable year."s Sec., 151(a), (c).

As relevant herein, section 152(a) defines a dependent to include a "qualifying child".

A qualifying child.must,sintere - alia, share the same principal pl'ace of abode as the taxpayer for mores than one-half of thecyea Iiñ issued »Sec. 152(c) (1)'(B). » Petitioner claims that she is entitled to dependency exemp ion deductions forther granddaughter and great= granddaughter because they lived with her in the Fresno home.

espondent contends that petitioner and her granddaughter and great-granddaughter did not share the same piincipal place of abode for more than one-half of the -year, in issue.

We find that petitioner and -her granddaughter and great- grand aughter did share the same principal place of abode for more than one-half of the yeag in issue.

See sec. 152(c) (1) (B).

Petitioner was not stranded in the mountains so much so that the Fresno home failed to be petitioner's home'; likewise, Charell and D.D. did not- spend, so much time with the uncle such that the Fresno home failed to be Charell's and D.D.'s home.

Therefore, petitioner's granddaughter and great-granddaughter are qualifying children under section 152(c).

ccordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for her 'granddaughter and great- granddaughter for 2007.

s No other requirement is at issue in the instant case.

Ba Earned Income Tax Credit - 6 -- u :Section 32 (a) (1) permit an,eligible individual an earned income credit (EIC) against t hat individual's tax liability. GAs pertinent here, the term "eligible individual" is defined to mean "any individual who has a qualifying child for the taxable year" .

Sec. 32(c) (1) (A) (i) .6+ The anfount of the credit is determined according to percentages ,thaÈ vary depending on whether the taxpayers has one qualifying child or two or more qualifying children.

Sec. 32 (b) .

The percentages increase if a taxpayer has two, quali fying children as , opposed ; to one .

Id .

Thus i f petitioner has two qualifying children, "the EIC is $4, 716 with one qualifying child, the EIÓ is $2,853.

See-Rev. Proc. 2006-53, sec.. 3.07(1), 2006-2 C.B. 996, 1000.

To be eligible to claim an EIC with respect to a "qualifying child", a taxpayer must- esta lish, inter alia, that the dhild had the same principal place of abode as -the taxpayer "for,more than one-half of the taxable year ? Secs . 32 (c ) (3) , 4152 (c ) (1) (B) .

an EIC for that' yéar without a See sec. 32(c) (1) (A) (ii).

in 2007, Because ?

See ~supra note 5.

We previously concluded that petitioner rand her granddaughter an great-granddaughter shared the säme principal place of abode for more than one-half of the year in issue.

Therefore, petitioner is entigled to the EIC she claimed on her 2007 Federal income tax return.

C. Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit Section 24( ) allows tax ayers a credit against tax imposed for each qualifying child.

The term "qual'ifying child" is defined by section 24(c) (1) to mean a qualifying child of the taxpayer as defined in section 152(c) who has not attained the age of 17. Section 24(d) provides that a portion of the credit I may be refundable, which portion is commonly referred to as the additional child tax credit.

etitioner claimed the additional child tax credit on her 2007 Federal inccme tax return for D.D.

We have previously concluded that D.D.

is a qualifying child as defined in section 152(c). Accordirgly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to the additional child tax credit för D.D. as claimed on the return.

D.

Head of Household Filinq Štatus As relevant herein, sect on 2(b) (1) (A) (i) provides that a taxpayer qualifies as head of household if she maintains as her home a household that constitutes the principal place of abode of a qual fying child for more t an one-half of the taxable year.

We have previously held that;petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for her granddaughter and great- granddaughter for 2007 becaude each is a qualifying child.

Accordingly, petitioner qualifies for head of household f-iling status for 2007.

Conclusion We have considered all of the ai-guments made by respondent, and, to the extent that we have not specifically addressed those arguments, -we conclude that hey are without- merits To reflect the foregoing Decis or will be entered for petitioner.

4. We decide "this case ithout regard to the burden of ' proof .
5. An eligible individual also includes an Ándividua wl o does not have a qualifying child. However, an EIC is available to such an individual only if his or her adjusted gross income is less than $12,590. * See Rev. Proc. 2006-53, sec. 3.07(1), 2006-2 C.B. 996, 1000. petitioner' s adjusted grosa income exceeded that amount petitioner is not entitled t qualifying child.