🚀 go-pugleaf

[Note that I am cross-posting this to the child support and fathers'
rights groups, as I believe it is of relevence to their scope of topic]


In a recent missive tjm@ray.com (Tom McGlynn) tells us:
*James Buster (bitbug@netcom.com) wrote:
*: In article <3fogdo$pam@news.ed.ray.com>, Tom McGlynn <tjm@ray.com> wrote:
*: >It appears that the mother may be providing less than
*: >50% support for the child, since the child is receiving
*: >support from the father and government agencies.
*
*: No matter how much CS the father pays, the mother is presumed to
*: provide 100% of the child's support, and thus is eligible for
*: the tax exemption. This can change only if the mother files a form
*: with the IRS giving away the exemption to the father.
*: --
*:                               James Buster
*:                            bitbug@netcom.com
*
*The custodial parent is not *assumed* to provide a certain amount.
*
*Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shedevil@vix.com) wrote:
*...
*
*: *It appears that the mother may be providing less than
*: *50% support for the child, since the child is receiving
*: *support from the father and government agencies.  If so,
*: *she is not entitled to an exemption deduction either!
*
*: This is incorrect.
*
*: Whoever has physical custody gets the deduction, period, regardless of
*: contribution.
*
*This is a common misconception.  The amount of support is figured by
*adding the amount the parent pays for food, shelter, clothing, medical
*care, etc.  If this amount is less than 50% of the total support paid
*for the child, regardless of the source, the parent is not entitled to
*an exemption deduction.
*
*Please read IRS Publication 19, Dependent Exemptions, support test!


I'm sorry Tom, but this is incorrect, and a non-custodial parent
following this and claiming the exemption is subject to getting nailed.

Internal Revenue Code ss152(e)(1) mandates that the custodial parent
*automatically* gets the exemption so long as the child lived with
either parent for more than one-half the year, so long as the parents
are legally separated or divorced, and so long as *over 50% of the
support for the child was provided by _either_ of the parents*.

I believe that this last clause is the source of confusion.  The last
clause does *not* say that the custodial parent must provide one-half
of the support.  It is either parent.  In otherwords, so long as one
or both parents provide at least 50% of the support of the child, the
*custodial* parent gets the deduction.  If the NCP pays 110% of the
support of the child, it doesn't matter, the CP gets the deduction.
The point being, so long as the child is eligible to be claimed as a
deduction, the CP gets the deduction.  The child can be claimed as a
deduction so long as one of the child's parents is contributing at
least 50% of the support of the child.

This is to end run the situation where, say, the child is actually
living with neither parent, and neither parent is supporting the
child; in that situation the custodial parent is not entitled to the
exemption.  On the other hand, if the child is not living with either
parent, and one parent *is* contributing greater than 50% of the
support of the child, then that parent is entitled to the exemption,
be it the NCP or the "CP".  Even then, Int.Rev.Code 152(e)(2) has been
interpreted to require that even under this circumstance, the NCP
would need the CP to sign the waiver of deduction.
--
   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
    Creator of fathers' rights newsgroups and the alt.support.* hierarchy
      Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
  LOOKING FOR:  Lorna Taylor, anyone from The Grammar School & Woolman Hill