Boyfriend, mother ^& grandmother live together. Mom & grandma have income less than 5,000. Boyfriend has 25,000.00 in income. Can boyfriend claim moms two children for dependents, eic & child tax credit.
-
-
TTB pp. 3-15 to 17 covers this for you. -
Gman,
Really, go to TTB page 3-15 and walk through the dependency tests starting from number one.
When you get to number 4, if the definition of qualifying Child is not met start at #4 - Qualifying Relative.
If all seven tests are met you'll have your answer.
It will seem redundant, but this is what I do every time, and before you know it you'll have the tests memorized. I will even count them out on my fingers and if I don't have a handful I pull out my TTB to see which I forgot - often it is what should be obvious - 6 year old, well of course they are not MFJ, but that is one of the tests and I make sure I have every test answered before I say yes or no.
If not biological father EIC & child tax credit nor HOH will be allowed.Comment
-
Thanks
I often do refer to that page, it just seems as though he supported them and lived with them that he should be entitled to claim it all. What if mom sigined over support, which she is willing to do.
Mom could also claim and get EIC, but support seemed to come entirely from boyfriend.Comment
-
No, it won't work. For EIC, Child tax credit or Head of Household they must be his biological children, he adopted them, or some type of legal court ordered placement.Originally posted by gman View PostComment
-
He cannot claim them as QC because they do not pass the relationship test.Originally posted by gman View Post
He cannot claim them as QR because they are the qualifying child of another taxpayer.
The mother cannot give up her right to claim them.
No trading kids around.You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.Comment
-
He can claim them
assuming all tests are made including #5
5) Not a qualifying child test. The relative must not be a qualifying child of any taxpayer
for 2008. For this purpose, a person is not a taxpayer if he or she is not required to file
a tax return and either does not file a return or only files a return to get a refund of
withheld income taxes.Comment
-
no, not by this year's rules taxeaBelieve nothing you have not personally researched and verified.Comment
-
Qualifying Relative
Taxea--
What do you mean by "this year's rules?"
Are you referring to changes that take effect for tax years beginning on or after 01/01/2009?
This particular question was hotly debated for a couple of years, and the IRS finally clarified the matter in Notice 2008-5.
A taxpayer can claim his girlfriend's kids as dependents, under the rules for qualifying relative, provided that all the tests are met. As noted by Veritas, a child will not be considered "the qualfiying child of another taxpayer" if the "other taxpayer" is not required to file a return, and does not file a return, or files a return only to claim a refund of tax withheld.
Here's the link to IRS Notice 2008-5:
This notice applies to all tax years beginning with 2005...
Do you have an authoritative citation that somehow nullifies or rescinds the interpretation provided in Notice 2008-5?
Or do you still believe that a child can somehow be the qualifying child of his nine-year old brother? That argument was actually advanced by a lot of people back in 2006 and 2007. They said that two young brothers were qualifying children of each other, and that their adult cousin could not claim either one of them as a qualifying relative. The age, relationship, residency, and support tests are all met. But it simply isn't what Congress intended. It was really ridiculous, and the IRS finally realized that they had to clear up this nonsense.
I concede that there may be some new rules going into effect as of 01/01/09... I haven't read up on it yet.
BMKBurton M. Koss
koss@usakoss.net
____________________________________
The map is not the territory...
and the instruction book is not the process.Comment
-
New for Tax Year 2009
The "Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008" enacted October 7, 2008 made at least two changes to the defination of a qualifying child ...
I concede that there may be some new rules going into effect as of 01/01/09... I haven't read up on it yet.
A qualifying child must be younger than the taxpayer claiming the person as a qualifying child.
If the parents of a child are allowed to claim the child as a qualifying child but no parent actually claims the child as a qualifying child, then the child may be claimed as a qualifying child of another taxpayer. This rule only applies if the adjusted gross income of the other taxpayer is higher than the highest adjusted gross income of any parent of the child.
I haven't quite figured out what the second provision means. But I'm sure it will all be clear (or changed) in time for tax season next year.Comment
-
Rear-view mirror
These types of questions remind me of days gone by while I was employed at "a storefront operation" tax business.
Sometimes it almost looked like a bridge game was occurring with everyone swapping Social Security cards!!
Thank goodness such days have now been replaced by a slightly different group of clients....
FEComment
-
Also
he may be able to claim girlfriend and grandma.Comment
-
I am interpreting these changes for 2009 as meaning something like this:Originally posted by DonPriebe View Post
A younger individual may only claim an older individual who is not disabled by using the rules for a Qualifying Relative.
An individual other than the parents who is otherwise eligible to claim someone as a Qualifying Child cannot claim the child unless either:
○ Neither parent is eligible to claim the child as a Qualifying Child
○ The individual has a higher AGI than any parent who is eligible to claim the child as a Qualifying ChildDougComment
Comment