One-half support?

[Black Bart]

Taxpayer has adult son, disabled but no significant medical, just regular livin' expenses. TP's income-$26K, son got $8K SS (no savings acct-all spent). Expense records are (pick one) unavailable/incomplete/non-existent.

I just hate hashin' out those support schedules (TP's clueless anyway) and it seems like too much son income to me, so I'm leanin' toward no dependency deduction. Any opinions?

[dyne]

During my career with IRS, I attempted to calculate the cost of support of a dependent
and disallowed many exemptions but it usually came out that social security was about
half so the bottom line was often guesswork. Another Tax Auditor took the total income
of both parent and child (here $34,000) and divided it by the number of people in the
household (here are two I suppose) to give a maximum support of $17,000 each.
Since social security benefits were $8,000, it could be argued that the mother provided
the other $9,000 and is entitled to the dependent. You could work for hours trying to compute
the total support and still not be sure. In this case I would lean toward NOT allowing the
exemption unless the dependent had unusually high support costs such as college or
medical expenses. Best wishes.

[BP.]

Just based on what you've posted, I might be more inclined to take the dependency exemption than not.

Here's my thinking:
Household income = $34,000 (26,000 + 8,000). If all spent on support then cost to support the parent & child could be calculated at $17,000 each. Half of $17,000 is $8,500. Therefore child provides less than 50% of support.

Also, EIC may be at stake here so I'd try to get the exemption in there if it is possible.

[dyne]

Sounds logical to me. Bear in mind that this computation was used by IRS as a means
to DISALLOW a dependent, but why could it not be used to allow a dependent? This
computation probably would only make sense if the total income in the household was
relatively low. This is a judgement call.

[BP.]

Well, how do you like that Bart? Dyne & I did the same math at the same time and arrived at different conclusions. But of course I would defer to the experience & wisdom dyne gleaned from their former professional incarnation.

[Black Bart]

Thanx guys,

Well, how do you like that Bart? Dyne & I did the same math at the same time and arrived at different conclusions. But of course I would defer to the experience & wisdom dyne gleaned from their former professional incarnation.

I like your methods -- the general Kentucky windage style -- which is what I was looking for. And now I'm sort of thinking I might take it 'cause it's very close, the risk is tolerable, and I'll probably lose the client if I don't.

Dyne -- I appreciate your former boogeyman's view.

Say BP -- I'd get that EITC either way, wouldn't I? Just has to live with mom (with or without dependency), doesn't he?

[BP.]

Say BP -- I'd get that EITC either way, wouldn't I? Just has to live with mom (with or without dependency), doesn't he?

Yes & yes. Thanks for updating my response!
BTW- what's KY windage? Is it safe for me to toss that into conversations w/my Loo-ville kin?

Ne'er mind- got it here: http://kentuckywindage.com/whatis.html Bit different than what I'd imagined!

[erchess]

Disability Social Security

as I understand it should be non taxable (TTB 3-18 taxpayer did pay into the plan) but if the rest of you were thinking that way you would all agree on parent taking the exemption so maybe I am mistaken.

[BP.]

as I understand it should be non taxable (TTB 3-18 taxpayer did pay into the plan) but if the rest of you were thinking that way you would all agree on parent taking the exemption so maybe I am mistaken.

SS as tx/nxt income & SS as a support item are two different issues.

[Black Bart]

Yes & yes. Thanks for updating my response!
BTW- what's KY windage?...

Can't speak for Kentucky, but around here it means taking your rough best guess at something while considering all the variables.

Is it safe for me to toss that into conversations w/my Loo-ville kin?
Ne'er mind- got it here: http://kentuckywindage.com/whatis.html Bit different than what I'd imagined!

Safe enough, I think -- while I'd never heard of that link's first definition ("Get the job done") before, I certainly hadn't imagined the last. Just goes to show there's nothing so innocuous that it can't be vulgarized.