NC Tax Law

[Oxtrainer]

A man supports a woman with no income and two of her children all year. These
children are not his. I understand that he can claim the woman as a dependent but
not the children as a dependent cannot claim a dependent. The NC book says use
the same dependents etc as the federal. Until now this was considered a illicit
relationship in this state. Has the law changed? Is it now legal to claim the woman
as a dependent? Appreciate any help.

[Bees Knees]

Section 152(f)(3) says: "An individual shall not be treated as a member of the taxpayer's household if at any time during the taxable year of the taxpayer the relationship between such individual and the taxpayer is in violation of local law."

Federal law here is the girlfriend cannot be her boyfriend's dependent if their relationship is breaking some kind of NC law. But even if it is, the girlfriend's kids living in his house would not be a violation of NC law, so they could be his dependents.

So for federal and state purposes, that might even be better for him to claim two kids instead of one girlfriend.

[Unregistered]

child

So for federal and state purposes, that might even be better for him to claim two kids instead of one girlfriend

Under the Qualifying Relative test, wouldn't the two kids still be qualifying child of anyone else. (his girlfriend) even if she doesn't file? So he could not claim the kids

[Bees Knees]

Ooops, I missed that one.

[Bees Knees]

Of course, if she is in violation of local law, and Section 152(f)(3) says she is treated as not being a member of the house, then her kids don't live with her and therefore are no longer her qualifying children. So boyfriend now gets to claim them because they are living in his house but girlfriend has to live outside in the back yard, or something along those lines.

Aren't these rules fun???

[WhiteOleander]

Of course, if she is in violation of local law, and Section 152(f)(3) says she is treated as not being a member of the house, then her kids don't live with her and therefore are no longer her qualifying children. So boyfriend now gets to claim them because they are living in his house but girlfriend has to live outside in the back yard, or something along those lines.

Aren't these rules fun???

But, how can he claim them? They don't pass the relationship test? Right?

[Gene V]

Mother lives in backyard

But, how can he claim them? They don't pass the relationship test? Right?

Under Bees last scenario, they would qualify under the relationship test. Since they don't live with there mother anymore, then they can't be qualifying child of there mother. Right?

[WhiteOleander]

Under Bees last scenario, they would qualify under the relationship test. Since they don't live with there mother anymore, then they can't be qualifying child of there mother. Right?

The way I see it, he still has no relationship by birth, marriage, adoption. or fosterchild. So, I don't think they can qualify. Right?

[Gene V]

Qr

The way I see it, he still has no relationship by birth, marriage, adoption. or fosterchild. So, I don't think they can qualify. Right?

To be a Qualifying Relative:
1. The person cannot be your qualifying child or the qualifying child of anyone else. (which the child is not)
2. The person must live with you all year as a member of your household (which the children do)
3. The person’s gross income for the year must be less than $3,200 (children have no income)
4. You must provide more than half of the person’s total support for the year (which he has)
Of course, this is all in theory.

[Bees Knees]

IRS could take the position that the kids still live with the mother. The mother doesn't live in the house for purposes of her boyfriends tax return, but she does live in the house in regards to her kids, for purposes of her own tax situation....since her relationship with the kids do not violate local law.

[Scarecrow]

IRS could take the position that the kids still live with the mother. The mother doesn't live in the house for purposes of her boyfriends tax return, but she does live in the house in regards to her kids, for purposes of her own tax situation....since her relationship with the kids do not violate local law.

I think Bees has stumbled on to something….the IRC is the first governmental proof of the existence of extraterrestrials. It may take quantum theory to explain, but I’ll give it a shot.

Girlfriend does not live in the same house with boyfriend.
Boyfriend does not live in the same house with girlfriend.
Girlfriend lives in the same house with her two children.
Boyfriend lives in the same house with the girlfriend’s same two children.

Is it possible? Yes, if we assume the boyfriend and girlfriend live in two parallel universes.

Boyfriend lives in a house located in Universe A.
Girlfriend lives in a house located in Universe B.

Now if we take both Universes and bend them into the shape of a clover, there could be two points at which they each intersect with each other. These two separate intersection points could be tied to the physical location of each child at all points in time. As each child moves through the house, these intersect points could change accordingly. Thus each child will occupy space on the planes of both Universes at all points in time.

Child 1 lives in a house located at intersection X of Universes A and B.
Child 2 lives in a house located at intersection Y of Universes A and B.

This is the only way we can logically explain the conundrum of Section 152(f)(3): Girlfriend lives with her two children but does not live with her boyfriend, even though her boyfriend lives with her two children.

We might need help from Stephen Hawking to fine tune the theory.

caw

[Bees Knees]

Boyfriend lives in a house located in Universe A.
Girlfriend lives in a house located in Universe B.

If boyfriend and girlfriend do not live in the same Universe, how is it they are having an illicit
relationship?

[Scarecrow]

If boyfriend and girlfriend do not live in the same Universe, how is it they are having an illicit
relationship?

Because two parallel Universes always contain identical matter.

Boyfriend from Universe A is identical to Boyfriend from Universe B
Girlfriend from Universe A is identical to Girlfriend from Universe B

Thus when Boyfriend from Universe A has illicit relations with his Girlfriend, Section 152(f)(3) kicks her out of the house, causing her to move into the house in Universe B.

At the same time, Boyfriend from Universe B is having illicit relations with his Girlfriend, who subsequently is being kicked out of the house under Section 152(f)(3) where she then moves into the house in Universe A.

In other words, Boyfriend from Universe A lives in the same house as Girlfriend from Universe B.
And Boyfriend from Universe B lives in the same house as Girlfriend from Universe A.

Thus Boyfriend from Universe A does not live with Girlfriend from Universe A.
And Boyfriend from Universe B does not live with Girlfriend from Universe B.

Since Child 1 from Universe A lives at intersection X of Universes A and B,
And Child 1 from Universe B lives at the same intersection X of Universes A and B,
Then Child 1 from both Universes lives with both Universe A and B boyfriends and girlfriends.

Likewise for Child 2 who lives at intersection Y of Universes A and B.

This is the only logical explanation for having the boyfriend and girlfriend not living in the same house under Section 152(f)(3) while at the same time having girlfriends custodial children live in the same house as the boyfriend.

caw

[Oxtrainer]

E Fowlkes NC Tax Law

I really do thank you all for your input, however when I get to work in the morning I
will probably have an unmarried couple with children setting before me. As I see it
now it still is Claim the woman as dependent and Can't claim the children. The
question still is does NC now ignore this law or must I just tell them it is illegal and
they can"t do it at all?

[Bees Knees]

I would not assume NC changed their law simply because they say they follow federal dependency rules. If unmarried couples live together and it is a violation of NC law, the federal rules would say no deal because federal rules follow local law on this issue. Thus, NC following federal rules would still mean identical treatment of dependents on the federal and state returns.