No. The dad doesn't get the tax breaks because he couldn't prove his case. To get tax breaks for a child, a parent has to show with evidence that the child lived with them more than half the year and that they paid for more than half of the child's needs (like food, housing, and clothes). The judge said the dad's story, and the stories from his mom and his friend, weren't believable because they had no proof like receipts or records. In fact, the proof that did exist—like the mom getting government help for the child—suggested the mom was the main caregiver. Because the dad couldn't prove he supported his daughter or that she lived with him most of the time, he lost the case.

No, Baker can't get the tax breaks. He didn't have enough proof that A lived with him more than half the year or that he paid over half of A's expenses. The government listed Wus as A's main caregiver. The judge didn't believe Baker's statements or the statements from his mom and friend, because they weren't based on firsthand knowledge and seemed biased in Baker's favor. So Baker didn't meet the requirements to claim A as a dependent and get the related tax benefits in 2003.

No. A taxpayer is not entitled to a dependency exemption, head of household status, or related tax credits without carrying the burden of proof with credible, substantiated evidence. Petitioner failed to establish that he provided over one-half of his daughter's support or that she resided with him for more than half of the taxable year. The court found petitioner's testimony, along with that of his mother and a family friend, to be conclusory, vague, self-serving, and uncorroborated. To claim the dependency exemption under I.R.C. § 152, a taxpayer must prove the total amount of the child's support from all sources and show that he provided over half of that amount. Petitioner failed to provide any records to substantiate either figure. Further, objective evidence, such as the mother receiving public assistance and being listed as the custodial parent by the state, contradicted petitioner's claims. Because petitioner failed to prove he was entitled to the dependency exemption, he was also ineligible for the child tax credit. Similarly, he failed to provide reliable evidence that his home was his daughter's principal place of abode for more than half the year, which is a prerequisite for both head of household status and the earned income tax credit.

No. Baker is not entitled to the claimed tax benefits because he failed to provide credible evidence or maintain records to substantiate his claims. I find that the State of Delaware listed Wus as A's custodial parent, and Baker did not prove that he provided over half of A's support or that A lived with him for more than half of 2003. Baker's testimony was conclusory, vague, and uncorroborated. The testimonies of his mother and friend were not based on personal knowledge and were self-serving. Therefore, Baker has not met his burden of proof to establish entitlement to the dependency exemption deduction, head of household filing status, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, or additional child tax credit for 2003.

Baker v. Comm'r

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot