Discussion:Living with girlfriend and her kids Qualifying Child (pre 2008-5)

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Living with girlfriend and her kids Qualifying Child (pre 2008-5)


UPDATE: First, refer to Notice 2008-5 - it supercedes much of the February 2007 discussion here.
But the discussion makes great reading for those wondering how the IRS interprets laws.

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I live with girl friend and her four boys. she and her kids lived with me all year during 2006. my girl friend does not work. she gets child support ($700 per month) from her x-husband. i support her and her kids (maintain the house and all the expenses). I file my taxes myself. Whats is the best possible way to file my taxes? I tried to read lots forums and information about dependent HOH but its making me more and more confused. Please help.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
The best way to file is to get a professional to help you.

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
One more note, when I try to use Turbo Tax "Guide Me" option and I answer all the questions. It let me file the taxes as HOH. But after reading IRS website, i came to conclusion that I can not file as HOH due to no qualifying child.

can I claim them all as dependent? can I file as HOH and claim them as dependent?

Thanks for help.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
NO HOH for you my friend....

You MAY be able to claim the g/f as your dependent, but no way on the kids...Like Kevin said, get some help with this if you can :)

Kerryfreeman@sbcglobal.net (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
remember you can not claim her children as depentants on your return. you can claim the girl friend if she had no income but you can not , repeat can not claim her boys as your depenant. sorry. IRS on quailifed child.

Yogafan00 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I'm afraid you're out of luck. The children are not related to you at all, nor is your 'girlfriend." You don't say what are age are the boys either. For all we know the non-custodial parent (father) may have the right to claim the children. Do you know if this is the case? Go to a library and pick up the booklet "2006 1040 instructions."

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
But Yoga, I think the G/F can be claimed as a "dependent" and get the exemption for such if she lived with him all year and he paid more than 1/2 her support, she did not earn income and it does not violate any law (as in an underage g/f)....but you are correct; the children cannot be claimed by the B/F...

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Yoga, he can click here: Publication 17. Or he can get a professional.

Yogafan00 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
SandySea, by the time I clicked submit/save, all the previous replies had already posted!! This thread sure caught everybody's attention! lol

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Okay, let's get this right because there is some mis-information here. You cannot file as HOH. You can claim her kids as your dependents if they lived with you for the entire year and you provided over 1/2 of their support. Same rules with her except that you should check to see if that child support is actually child support or alimony. In the case of alimony she would not qualify as your dependent.

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
CA, he can't claim the kids, the first test under qualifying relative is "the person cannot be your qualifying child OR the qualifying child of anyone else" The person (kids) are the qualifying child of the mother (girlfriend). So unless the kids lived with him all year, and the mother did not, he can't claim them.

Kerryfreeman@sbcglobal.net (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
catax, I beg your pardon. He can not claim the children if they (the children) could be the quailifed child of someone else.quick test is 1< unmarried, 2<us citizen 3< either a qualifing child or quailfing relative. bottom line Not his children not a quailfing child, not the taxpayer or ANYONE else quailifing child (mother can claim quailifing child) sorry

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Unless you read "taxpayer" as meaning someone who actually pays taxes. If mother had no income, is she a taxpayer? Then look for the children's father and grandparents and siblings to see if the child is a QC of any of these. See why he shouldn't do this by himself?

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Hmmm CA; I am sorry to disagree but in order to claim the children, but the children CAN BE qualifying children of the mom (or father for that matter) and so the boyfriend CANNOT claim them as his dependents. Even though the mom cannot claim them because she has no reportable income, she still has the RIGHT to claim them and the B/F cannot. This is my understanding of the tax law as it pertains to a child as a dependent:)

Yeah, Yoga...so many replies intermingle....hehe

Kerryfreeman@sbcglobal.net (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
keven the issue of taxpayer is knock out with the words "OR the qualifying child of anyone else"

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Boys are 14, 12, 10, and 3. All the boys and girl friend lived entire year with me. I provide everything to all of them. I assume ( not sure), child support is not taxable income.

Thanks for all the replies.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
In this case, the child COULD BE the QC of his siblings as well....Kevin has it on the nose...get some help on this issue :)

Kerryfreeman@sbcglobal.net (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Sengrag, I think by you giving us more info that you are still going to claim these children. I would suggest that you seek a professional and don't do this your self. the money spent with the right answer will save you ten fold in the future if you do this wrong.

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I will get some help as it is very confusing. Thanks for quick responses that you guys have given.

Should I consider going to tax lawer or HR Block?

Thanks

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
But to include somebody as your qualifying child, doesnt child has to live with you for more than half a year?

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
You don't necessarily need a tax lawyer...it is simply not claiming children whom you do not have the right to claim....you can STILL use Turbotax if you like but may be something you want to discuss with a tax preparer or CPA/EA. H&R Block should be fine as well....just DON'T TAKE THE CHILDREN AS DEPENDENTS as they are not :)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Kerry, please read Sec. 152(d)(1)(D). The tax law refers to "not a qualifying child of any other taxpayer" NOT as misinterpreted in the IRS pubs (and by many) as "not a QC of anyone else". Thus the difference. So my question remains, Is the mother a "taxpayer"?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Sengrag: before engaging H & R Block or another high volume office, print out this discussion and take it with you. Some preparers, especially the year end kind, might not know the law like the experts we have above and might want to give you the dependents.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Good idea D&T....sometimes another preparer may not even question his stance and take the deduction....:)

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
who are the experts in taxes? Lawers or CPAs or Accountants? Do you know any organization where I can find an expert like you guys?

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Most of the people in your area I am sure (if they are tax preparers, etc.) will KNOW the laws relating to dependency exemptions. You now have the question; just ask the preparer what they think of your situation; if they tell you that the children are not your dependents, then you know they understand the rules for dependency exemptions...like D&T said, just print this out for future use...I am sure you will be just fine :)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Generally you would ask about a person's experience doing taxes and credentials. An Enrolled Agent (EA), CPA, or Attorney can represent you in case of tax issues. Other preparers cannot, but that doesn't mean they don't know how to do a tax return.


Hey, TAXPROS, nobody wants to comment on my Sec. 152 question/remark??????

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Need to defend my position then. I agree they are not a qualifying child, but since they are not a qualifying child of another taxpayer (fail member of household with father) they do qualify under the old rules of support, member of household, gross income test, etc.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Old rules no longer apply. Have to be QC or QR.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Yes...unfortunately CA; the old rules went out and now the NEW IMPROVED (yeah, right) rules come into play. The law is so ambiguous that it is sometimes hard to tell when one law goes out and another comes in :)

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
No, the old rules do apply for qualifying relative or any dependent that did not qualify as a qualifying child.

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
From Pub 501 Qualifying Relative

There are four tests that must be met for a person to be your qualifying relative. The four tests are: Not a qualifying child test, Member of household or relationship test, Gross income test, and Support test. Age. Unlike a qualifying child, a qualifying relative can be any age. There is no age test for a qualifying relative.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I will comment after you folks actually read the code Sec. 152, and not the Pubs.

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Sec 152 says the same thing. The dependency deduction still looks at the MFJ test, citizenship/resident test, support test, gross income. Those are all of the old tests. Add to that the "not a quaifying child of another taxpayer" and you have the current rules.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
THANK YOU. Note that it said "taxpayer" and not "anyone else"?

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Neither the children nor the girlfriend are the qualifying child of another taxpayer.

TaxManager (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I don't see where that was necessarily established yet. The children could still be the qualifing child of the father

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Don't meet household test with father.

Taxguy1024 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
The code uses the term "taxpayer" to refer to anyone who is "subject to" the tax laws.....as much as I'd like Kevin's interpretation to be correct.....I have my doubts....

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Now I'm kind of thinking Kevin might be on to something, what is the defenition of taxpayer, it is as simple as one who pays tax? I'm going to think on that, have a client waiting right now though, I'll check back later.

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
kevin, what do you recommend?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Taxguy, is a child with no income a "taxpayer" then, because he is still subject to the rules?

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Note Riley's comment Discussion:Dependents in Mexico

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I was looking at "taxpayer" as some who is filing or is required to file.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Sengrag, here is the stupid thing about taxes: Because the laws are subject to interpretation, you could go to different tax professionals and get different answers. If the IRS audits you, you have to argue your point (or have a professional argue for you). If you don't agree with the auditer, you appeal. If you don't agree with the appeal, you go to tax court in the district in which you live. A tax court for your district could decide the answer differently from the tax court in another district, in which case you would have the right to go to the Supreme Court.


All I want is for you to be able to defend your position up to the level that you can afford to defend it. The recommendation to get professional help is so that you can fall back on their expertise to an extent. You are responsible for whatever goes on your tax return, but the tax pro will be able to defend his position up to whatever level he is licensed.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
CATAXES, a married couple with earnings under 10,200 and therefore doesn't need to file, and actually doesn't file is not a taxpayer?


I am not saying NO, I am just saying "we need to know what a taxpayer is".

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
In the case you present you might argue that they are a taxpayer because without the standard deduction and exemptions they would pay taxes. IRS does the "not required to file" but that's only because IRS is applying deductions/exemptions to their income. Example: If you don't inform SSA of your marriage (don't need to do unless you want a name change) then the first time the gov't knows you are married is when you file your MFJ return. Absent that a married taxpayer with $10,200 in Wages on one only W-2 would get an IRS generated letter for not filing.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I agree. They had income, you have to figure out if they owe tax or not, turns out with std ded and exemptions they don't but you have to apply the law, so let's call them taxpayers. But what if they had NO income? Can they still be called a taxpayer?

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
For the dependent exemption in this case I have concluded "no", so I get a "not the qualifying child of any taxpayer for 2006" result. I will say that this question affects my returns. I have filed one return already and have another on my desk right now that claim an unrelated child of a live-in, $0 income girl friend as a dependent.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
CATAXES, you and I agree on this. But Sandy, Yoga, Kerry, Kathy, and untold lurkers do not agree.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Technically if girlfriend is a dependent she cannot have qualifying child, no?♫

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Dennis, I think the rule is a dependent cannot have his/her own dependents. Different.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Aside from a non-lurker but fascinated reader: another DIY question that needed amplifying and might not have seen this needed discussion had it been on a DIY page.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
Perhaps not. Girlfriend could qualify as dependent and still get earned income credit.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
(only if I didn't answer the DIY question, but I have been known to do just that)

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2007
I'm thinking about it, not entirely sure just yet. I was sure, according the pub, but Sec 152 (first time to actually read it) does put a different take on it. I'm going to have to think about it. Kevin has a point, children are subject to tax laws as well as adults, but we assume if they have no income, they are not taxpayers. If they were taxpayers (with no income); then no one would ever qualify if sibblings were living in the home, and we know that's not correct. It does appear that an adult with no income would not be considered a taxpayer considering that.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
I was also expecting a comment regarding my synopsis of tax law and why the average taxpayer still needs a professional.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Has anyone read the committee report. I found this under "Interaction with present-law rules"


"Taxpayers generally may claim an individual who does not meet the uniform definition of qualifying child with respect to any taxpayer as a dependent if the present law deprendency requirements (including the gross income and support tests) are satisfied." This is amplified by two examples and a footnote which states 'Individuals who satisfy the present-law dependency tests and who are not qualifying children are referrred to as 'qualifying relatives' under the provision.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Kevin: realize that the House of Representatives had no part in drafting this. Whether that was a good thing or bad thing, I do not know. I can only recall my ex-boss saying Fannie Fox did more to destroy tax law than any person on earth, when Wilbur Mills was caught with her. Wilbur knew taxes and understood them. Now we have people who change the law at the drop of a hat, or is it bag full of money.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
My daddy taught me not to play with firecrackers. Some people never learn. The reference is to Wilbur and Fannie.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-57-04.pdf


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr126&dbname=108&

Riley2 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
The code has a very simple definition of the word "taxpayer." Under IRC Sec. 7701(a)(14), the term taxpayer means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. All citizens and residents of the United States are "subject to” internal revenue taxes under Tax Court’s commonly used definition of the term (being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of a law).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Then hardly any one gets to claim dependents, because they can be QC of another "taxpayer" in the household (i.e. the 5 year old little sister can claim the 14 yr old brother as her Qualifying Child).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
If you want to say "but 5 year old is a dependent, and dependents cannot claim their own dependents" then change the scenerio to say that 5 year old little sister gets $10,000 of Social Security money from her deceased father's account, which is used by the mother for household expenses. Since she provides over half her own support, she is not mom's dependent. NOW she gets to claim her 14 year old brother. Except the 14 year old brother is also a QC of mom. No one gets to claim daughter or son/brother in this example.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Would seem that everyone in the world is subject to US tax if the possibility exists they can have US source income. ♫

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Well I just read the links that Kevin posted and I'm going to have to agree, summed up by what D&T posted, if the present law (old law) tests are met, I say he can claim the kids. Only to the exemption, not to the credits.

Taxguy1024 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
The tax code uses the term "taxpayer" to refer to everybody.....because that's what they want everybody to be.......

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Taxguy, then no one gets to claim children as dependents if there are other children in the family (see above). Clearly this is not what congress intended. I think the IRS is misinterpreting Congress' intentions. It wouldn't be the first time. Witness the fiasco with the self-employed health insurance, when they said "must be in the business name".

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
It would also seem the old head of household rules still apply for single parent who has working child living with them.

"A taxpayer may claim head of household filing status if the taxpayer is unmarried (and not a surviving spouse) and pays more than one half of the cost of maintaining as his or her home a household which is the principal place of abode for more than one half of the year of (1) an unmarried son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter of the taxpayer or an unmarried descendant of the taxpayer's son or daughter,"

Yogafan00 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
I don't think TP can file HOH just 'cause girlfriend lives with him.

CATAXES (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Focus... HOH requires relationship, Yoga. HOH also requires age which knocked out a lot of the old HOH claims (unmarried, adult child at home).

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
My point, however, was that as stated in the interaction section of the committee report, age apparently does not matter.

Blrgcpa (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
You don't mention if the mother allows the father to claim the children as his dependents.

If you want to claim them next year, tie the knot! Then you can file MFJ.

Check the irs.gov web site. They are the final answer.

CPA, EA, and attorneys can represent you before the IRS.

Yogafan00 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Blrgcpa, precisely, for all we know the boys father may have already filed and claimed his children, whether he was entitled or not.

Sw (talk|edits) said:

February 8, 2007
If something that would seem to have a simple answer has this many different opinions I don't know have we ever get anything done.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
That's why we have Block, Hewitt and Liberty....to resolve these differences

Sw (talk|edits) said:

February 8, 2007
They probably just give them the deduction and never think twice. It easier that way.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
If they read the pubs, they DON'T give the deduction.


Note that all we are discussing is the allowance for exemptions as dependents. Because they are not a QC of this taxpayer, he can't get EIC, Child Credit, etc. Wasn't the purpose of the UDC to stop us from having to separate these issues?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Elementary, my dear Dr. Kevin, but thanks for pointing it out.

Sengrag (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2007
Can I file as Married Filing Jointly (common marriage law in Oklahoma)? Is this an option?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 8, 2007
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2007
Tim: Barnstar Forum Award recommendation for me  : } Kevinh5

Hereinarizona (talk|edits) said:

19 February 2007
Does this help? Item number 14



Sec. 7701. Definitions

TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701. STATUTE

   (a)   When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
       (1)   Person
       The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. 
       (2)   Partnership and partner
       The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or a corporation; and the term "partner" includes a member in such a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or organization. 
       (3)   Corporation
       The term "corporation" includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies. 
       (4)   Domestic
       The term "domestic" when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations. 
       (5)   Foreign
       The term "foreign" when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic. 
       (6)   Fiduciary
       The term "fiduciary" means a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person. 
       (7)   Stock
       The term "stock" includes shares in an association, joint-stock company, or insurance company. 
       (8)   Shareholder
       The term "shareholder" includes a member in an association, joint-stock company, or insurance company. 
       (9)   United States
       The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. 
       (10)   State
       The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title. 
       (11)   Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary
           (A)   Secretary of the Treasury
           The term "Secretary of the Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his. 
           (B)   Secretary
           The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. 
       (12)   Delegate
           (A)   In general
           The term "or his delegate" -
               (i)   when used with reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context; and 
               (ii)   when used with reference to any other official of the United States, shall be similarly construed. 
           (B)   Performance of certain functions in Guam or American Samoa
           The term "delegate," in relation to the performance of functions in Guam or American Samoa with respect to the taxes imposed by chapters 1, 2, and 21, also includes any officer or employee of any other department or agency of the United States, or of any possession thereof, duly authorized by the Secretary (directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority) to perform such functions. 
       (13)   Commissioner
       The term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 
       (14)   Taxpayer
       The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Coleen10 (talk|edits) said:

21 February 2007
Hello, I just want to say that I went to H&R Block to get my taxes done last year and they way they did it is: I am unmarried but have been living w/boyfriend for 3 years and we have a 2 1/2 year old, well he claimed HOH & the child and I claimed the child as a quailifing child for the EIC...this year, I went to a diffrent tax professional and they said that this was illegal for H&R Block to do...is this true or no? Help!!! THanks: )

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

21 February 2007
Yea Kevin5! In the infamous words of Chief "a tax program is no substitute for a tax pro...

Deback (talk|edits) said:

February 21, 2007
Coleen - If you didn't live with your boyfriend, and if your boyfriend is the child's biological father, and if the child lived with you, then you could sign Form 8332 (which would be attached to his Federal tax return) and allow him to claim the exemption for the child and the child tax credit, with filing status Single. Then you could file as HOH, claim the earned income credit, and the child care (babysitting) credit for the same child.

Since you lived together, you would have to claim the child as a dependent in order to get the EIC, child tax credit, and child care credit. You would both file as Single, in this case, unless your income was more than your boyfriend's. If your income was more than your boyfriend's, you could file as HOH and your boyfriend would file as Single.

Anthony DiPierro (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2007
See Notice 2008-5 and smile. Then print it out and take it to a tax professional along with your 2005 and 2006 returns if you think this situation might affect you.

Tonymontana (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2007
Thank you for that Anthony.

RayR (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2007
For the dependency exemtion only - Note this does not include HOH, EIC,Child tax credit etc - but for the depencency exemptions the girl friends children can be dependents. Boy Friend meets the requirement under qualifing relative - "..an individual that for the tax year has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayers houshold." Look at section 152(d)(2)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

25 January 2008
Discussion:WOW!! IRS notice 2008-5 and section 152(d)(1)

Of course, saying "I told you so" is not in good taste. So I won't say it (I'll just write it).

EZTAX (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Kevinh5 - Early in the Wow discussion I gave you props for your reply in another related discussion that D&T sited. You were one of the few voices questioning the IRS interpretation over a year ago. Very impressive!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Now I really do wonder if our discussions played any part in the issuance of 2008-5....I said it jokingly before but maybe, just maybe, an IRS lurker read this.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
no doubt he didn't fill out a profile  : ) Image:smile.jpg

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
I agree with Anthony. This is a clear cut case of the IRS Notice 2008-5. No HOH,EIC or CTC but kids and mom are QR's and qualify as dependents if the other tests are met.

TaxNovice 1 (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Hi folks, The Tax Code says that a person cannot be a qualifying relative (QR) of a taxparyer is a qualifing child (QC) of any other person. However, for purposes of this rule, a "taxpayer" is someone with a filing requirement, in other words, an individual is not a taxpayer for the QC vs QR test if he or she is not required to file a federal tax return.

Note: For purposes of this rule, someone who files just to get a refund of any federal taxes withheld is NOT a taxpayer. But someone who files to claim a refundable credit, such as the EIC IS A TAXPAYER.

GOOD LUCK

EZTAX (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Hate to sound like a broken record but...

If girlfriend is over 25 and makes 4k on a W-2, she would get EIC based on her alone (not kid). What are we supposed to do? It would not surprise me if the IRS would send her the EIC even if we did not include it on the return!

I did leave a message at the number found on 2008-5 but still have not heard back. Guess they are pretty busy.

As far as I can tell we also never were totally clear on what would happen if the girlfriend has 1k of SE income. I am inclined to feel that this does not fall under 6012 but others have argued differently in another thread. Just does not seem right that being self-employed should change the situation.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Yey, EZ, after two years they finally got the general principles that Congress legislated right, and took away the inconsistencies in their publications. Give them time! To paraphrase Terrence Rattigan, Easy to make justice, hard to make right

TaxNovice 1 (talk|edits) said:

27 January 2008
I am a member of the National Association of Tax Preparer.

This found this quiz in this months issue.

Question: Tony and Tina, an unmarried couple that live together, come into your office to have you prepare their necessary tax returns. Tony does not work (nor does he have any income) but has two children, ages 4 and 6, from a previous marriage. These children lived with Tony and Tina all year long. Tina provides the majority of the support for Tony and his children. Can Tina claim a dependency exemption for Tony or his children?

Answer: Yes, all three of them are qualifying relatives of Tina. For someone to be a qualifying relative, four tests must be met:

The person cannot be a qualifying child of another person. Because Tony is not required to file a return, his children are not qualifying children of his (Notice 2008-5). The person must either live with the taxpayer for the entire year or be a relative. The person's gross income must be less than $3,400 for the year. The taxpayer must provide over half the person's support for the year. Tina can claim dependency exemptions for Tony and his children; however, she will not be allowed head of household filing status, the child tax credit, or the earned income credit.

Genskitty (talk|edits) said:

April 6, 2009
Kevin, it's alittle overdue but here it is. Everyone is a taxpayer. A person who goes to the store and buys something pays taxes. A person who has a home has real estate taxes. A person may have property taxes. A person who works has income tax. So, yes even a person who has no earned income is still a taxpayer.

Riley2 (talk|edits) said:

6 April 2009
Genskitty, I don't disagree with you, but Notice 2008-5 does say that Tony is not a taxpayer for purposes of Sec. 152.

Genskitty (talk|edits) said:

April 6, 2009
Riley2, gotcha :)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 April 2009
which is what I said all along.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.