Discussion:Disabled Adult Child - Am I missing Something?
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Disabled Adult Child - Am I missing Something?
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Disabled Adult Child - Am I missing Something?
| 8 April 2008 | |
| I have a client whose adult, disabled daughter was moved into a group facility (with medical care) during 2007. This means that my client cannot claim head of household or the dependency exemption (unless she provides more than 50% of her daughter's support). I think the state is paying more than 50%. We tried to prepare the client for this, but she is extremely frustrated.
Just in case I am missing something, is anyone aware of any special rules that would apply here? Thanks for your time! | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 8 April 2008 |
| Sounds like you got it! So sad....too bad....we don't make the rules! | |
| 8 April 2008 | |
| Can she fall under 'temporary absence' rules?
Haven't researched, just thinking out loud. | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 8 April 2008 |
| But they do not provide more than half of her support. | |
PostingFromWork (talk|edits) said: | 8 April 2008 |
| Nancy, you are asking the wrong question. The question is if the daughter is providing over half of her own support. Since the daughter is permanently and totally disabled, and is staying at a medical facility (which counts as a temporary absence) the daughter otherwise qualifies as a Qualifying Child. | |
| 8 April 2008 | |
| But wouldn't the SSI and state aid received be included as the daughter's contributions to her own support?
This move is permanent. The daughter is not coming back home. She needs full time care. I don't think this can qualify in any way as temporary. | |
| 9 April 2008 | |
| Public assistance is not self-support. Doesn't sound like this is a temporary absence. | |
| 9 April 2008 | |
| Per Pub 501 it looks like the daughter would have to live with her for more than half the year to qualify as Qualifying Child.
Under Qualifying Relative it mentions that state aid is considered part of their support. | |
Nancyshoemake (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2008 |
| This is what I love about this website.....boy oh boy..... | |
TheTinCook (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2008 |
| First of all, stop reading the Pubs. They're only good for housebreaking the few kittens we have left and for avoiding penalties. Pubs are not authoritative and are sometimes misleading.
On the "temporary absence" issue, if the dependent is absent for the purposes of receiving medical treatment it is considered to be a "temporary absence" even if the arrangement seems to be permanent, indefinite, or even if death intervenes. It's been a long settled issue and the Uniform Definition of a Child changes didn't change anything in that regard. See Rev Rul 66-28; ยง1.152-2(b); Hein v. Commissioner , 28 T.C. 826 (1957); and Judge Gail's concurring opinion in Rowe v. Comissioner 128 T.C. No. 3 (2007). On the support issue, it's getting a little late at night for me to tackle this in depth. Supplemental Security Income and like benefits are considered support provided from the state, not the individual. Social Security Disibility Insurance are considered to be support provided by the individual since it is based on the individual's FICA contributions. This is one area where the UDC changes made the support test easier to meet. See the posts by Riley2 and KDT in Discussion:Dependent qualification of Disabled Child. As mentioned earlier, this the QC test and not the QR test, we are only concerned with the amount of support the child provided. | |
| 9 April 2008 | |
| There is a big difference between living in an insane asylum and living in a group home for the developmentally disabled. The former is hopefully nonpermanent, and the latter is presumably permanent. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| My take from the post is that the daughter moved to or was placed in a group home type setting that may have medical care available if needed. Not in some institution primarily for receiving medical care or treatment. The absence still could be temporary, I suspose, depending on the facts and circumstances. But in most situations this would seem to be a permanent type of move. Quite common now for disabled individuals to live in group homes. | |
TheTinCook (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| "There is a big difference between living in an insane asylum and living in a group home for the developmentally disabled. The former is hopefully nonpermanent, and the latter is presumably permanent."
Following the reasoning in Hein supra, you would need only need to consider the child's intent to permanently change residence. The chance of recovery and return has no bearing. Even if the child was terminally ill and living in a hospice, it would still be considered a temporary absence, even though there would be a zero percent chance that the child would come home. The significant purpose of a group facility is to provide supervision, treatment, and medical care that are otherwise unavailable in the home. I think it's more likely then not that this is a temporary absence. | |
