Discussion:Examination of Filing Status and Dependency Exemptions

The reason for the proposed assessment is due to the fact that the childrens father also claimed them as dependents. However, the children have not resided with the father at all, he has not even visted them nor paid or none of their support.

I responded the first letter with birth certificates, to establish relationship, school records and doctor records to establish residency, Mother provided a notorized statement that children have resided with there father since 2006 and he does not see the children nor does he provide any support for the children.

We received a letter back today stating that even though we showed the relationship, residency they were still disallowing the exemptions, credits and HOH status because the father has superior claim. I realized that it does state in pub 17 that if two people claim a child and one is the parent and the other is not then the parent has superior claim.

I am looking for some assistiance on how to respond b/c even though the man is biologically the father, he does not provide for these children or have the chidren resided with them, my client, the childrens, uncle has provided all care and support. As a matter of fact custody was awarded to the childrens grandmother, who live with my client as well. So neither the father or the mother have custody of these kids. How to i save my client from haveing to owe $3700

If they disallowed the claim because the mom and grandmother were in the home I would have to go back and look it up. But even then, I think, it should not be a problem since neither the mom or grandma have any income.

I think you meant to say above that mother provided a letter saying the children have NOT resided with their father....

Also what about claiming mom and grandma as dependents?

The rule you state only applies if the children are qualifying children of both individuals. It doesn't apply in your case because the nieces are not qualifying children of their father. They reason they are not is they did not live with the father for more than 1/2 of the year. I agree with you and EZTAX - your client gets HOH and the exemptions for the nieces. (And even if not, they could still get HOH for Mom (either his Mom or the nieces Mom.)

The tie breaker rule that could come into play is between your client and the children's Mom. Mom would not necessarily get the exemption for the nieces but, as the natural parent with whom the children also lived with for more than six months, she would get first choice. Are you sure the nieces Mom didn't file a return and claim them - perhaps to get EITC.

The QC tie-breaker rule says that in the event of a dispute between the uncle and the mother, the mother will prevail. The biological father of the children may not utilize the QC tie-breaker rule at all since the children are not his qualifying children (he fails the principal residence test).

Since the children are not the QC’s of the father, the only 2 taxpayer who would be entitled to claim the QC’s would be the uncle or the mother.

The biological father may not claim the children as qualifying relatives since the children are QC’s of either the mother or her brother.