Shereal Wallace, Petitioner

T . C . Summary Opinion 2011-116 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SHEREAL WALLACE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11411-10S.

Filed September 29, 2011.

Shereal Wallace, pro se.

Christina L. Lewerenz, for respondent.

WELLS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.¹ 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 1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

SERVED SEP 2 9 2011

case. Respondent determined a $3,137 deficiency in petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax. After concessions by respondent, the issues we must decide are whether petitioner is entitled to claim dependency exemption deductions for Daquetta Davis (Ms. Davis) and M.D. and whether petitioner is entitled to the child tax credit for M.D.2 Background Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated.

The parties' stipulations of facts are incorporated in this opinion by reference and are found accordingly. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner was a resident of Missouri.

Petitioner timely filed his tax return for 2007, claiming dependency exemption deductions for Ms. Davis and M.D. and a child tax credit for M.D. Ms. Davis is petitioner's niece, and M.D.

is Ms. Davis' daughter. At the close of 2007, Ms. Davis was 21 years old and M.D. was 2 years old. Ms. Davis is not married, and petitioner is not sure who is the father of M.D. Petitioner took Ms. Davis and M.D.

into his home during January 2007 because they were homeless, and they resided in a spare room in his home until October 2007. Ms. Davis received her certificate of high school equivalence on September 4, 2007. During the period when 2The Court refers to minor children by their initials.

Rule 27(a) (3).

See -.3 - Ms. Davis and M.D.

resided with petitioner, Ms. Davis did.not have a .job and received no)other income.

Respondent issued a notice. of+deficiency to petitioner, .and petitioner tìmely, fi1ed his -petition with this Court .

.

. Discussion ..

As a general rule, the Commissioner' s determinations set forth in, a notice of deficiency_are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears .the burden, of -proving ötherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1:933) ; If the taxpayer satisfies certain substantiation and,:recórd keeping:requirements, the burden of proof regarding factual matters smay .shift to the .

Commissioner.

· · , see sec .

7491(a) .

- PetiÈioner has not contended, and we do -not f ind;, that the burden of proof should shif t to respondent .

See sec . 7491 (a) (2). (A) and . (B) .

A taxpayer -may claim a dependency.exemption deduction with .

respect to an· individual who .is .either a "qualifying child" or a "qualifying relative". "qualifying, child", an .individual must:

Secs. 151(c)., 152(a).

To be a taxpayer's (A) Bear a,qualifying relationship to the taxpayer;- (B) have the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the taxable year; (C) 'meeÉ certain age reqùirements; and (D) not have provided morë than half of his or her own support for the year.

Sec . 152 (c) (1)'.

(A) who bears a qualifying relationship^to the taxpayer; (B) whose gross income is less than the exemption amount defined in section 151·(d) ; (C) for whom, the taxpayer has provided more than .one-half of the individual's support; and (D) who is not a qualifying. child of the taxpayer or any other taxpayer.

For 2007, the exemption amount pursuant to section 151(d) was $3,400.

Rev. Proc. .2006-53, sec. 3.18, 2006-~2 C.B. s996, 1001.

.Petitioner offered no evidence1regarding the amount of Ms.

^ Davis' gross income during the period when she was not .living sin his .home .

Because the burden of proof is on petitioner and he offered no evidence, we conclude that· he is not entitled to claim Ms . Davis as a qualifying relative under section 152 (d) .

Section 24 (a) authorizes a tax ^credit with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer.

The term "qualifying child"~ means a qualifying child of the taxpayer as defined in section i 152 (c) who has not .attained age 17.

Sec. 24 (c)..

We have already held that M.D.

is a qualifying child, and she was under the age of 17. Accordinglyi we hold -that petitioner is entitled to the child tax credit for M.D.

· In reaching these holdings, we have considered all the parties' arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without inerit.

To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concesslons, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.