🚀 go-pugleaf

What about the case where neither parent is considered the sole custodial parent
by virtue of a joint physical custody agreement ? Who gets the deduction ?

-Rich

Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shedevil@vix.com) wrote:

: [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