🚀 go-pugleaf

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]

[much discussion of tax exemptions deleted]

: 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.

This was part of the tax simplification in 1986.  Before that the
rules were different.  To further confuse the issue pre-1985
orders are grandfathered if they explicitly provided the
exemption to the NCP (mine did).  I had a direct interest in
this issue, so I took the time to look into it.

Otherwise Anne is 100% correct.  The NCP cannot claim the exemption
without the signed waiver.  Period.

--
----- Scott Morizot ----------- tmorizot@eden.com -----
|
| I'm not an attorney, tax advisor, or anything similar.
| I'm just a programmer.  But I do work for the IRS.
-------------------------------------------------------