EIC confusion

[dhawkcpa]

Two young clients live together and are not married. He made 30k and she made 20k in 2009. Disabled child lived with them all year. Can she take the EIC and the CTC and the addl CTC and the exemption if he agrees not to? She does need the $2267.

The HOH question is confusing too. He spent a lot of his money on a previous girlfriend and their unmarried child. Can't wait to see their numbers. I don't think he can just give her the HOH status.

I don't know if they make me more mad or sad. Thanks for your comments.

Dennis

[taxea]

If the two live together then neither qualify for HOH which is meant for single-adult household.
Who do the kids belong to? If they are hers she takes them. If they are his he takes them.
Look at the TTB chart pages 3-15 through 17.

[Lion]

HoH

HoH goes to the one who pays more than half the upkeep of the home for taxpayer and qualifying child. Others can live there also. But, do work through the steps to see who qualifies for HoH, if anyone in that household does.

[Koss]

HoH Rules

Taxea wrote:

If the two live together then neither qualify for HOH which is meant for single-adult household.

The rules for HoH say absolutely nothing about a "single-adult household." The requirements are that the taxpayer must be unmarried, must have paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home, and must have a qualifying person. The fact that other adults may live in the same household is irrelevant.

BMK

[Koss]

HoH and EIC

The question of who qualifies for HoH is different from the question of who should claim the child. But the two issues are related. I am assuming, although it is not entirely clear from your original post, that the entire household consists of three people, and that the unmarried couple are the parents of the child, i.e., he is the bio father and she is the bio mother.

You noted that he made 30K and she made 20K, but that he "spent a lot of his money on a previous girlfriend and their unmarried child."

By "unmarried child," do you mean that he and his girlfriend have a child that is unmarried, or do you mean that they had a child out of wedlock? (Doesn't matter; I'm just yanking your chain here.)

If he spent a significant portion of his income supporting people who did not live with him during 2009, then it is certainly possible that she paid more than half the cost of keeping up their home, even though her income is less than his.

With that being said...

Even if she did not pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home, this fact in and of itself does not prevent her from claiming the child.

The child appears to be the qualifying child of both parents. In this context, they can choose who claims the child. If they can't agree and both claim the same child, then the tiebreaker rules apply, and the exemption and credits go to the parent with the highest AGI. That would be the father, even if she did pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home.

Also:

If he paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home, then he qualifies for HoH, but only if he claims the child. If he doesn't claim the child, then he doesn't have a qualifying person for HoH.

BMK

[BP.]

If the two live together then neither qualify for HOH which is meant for single-adult household.

And from the "New Car Sales Tax Credit" thread:

You shouldn't read into any of the instructions for what you want it to mean.

As Burton ably notes:

The rules for HoH say absolutely nothing about a "single-adult household."

[dhawkcpa]

To clarify: Both this guy's illegitimate kids are under 8 years old. Also unmarried. They are all unmarried. To the best of my knowledge, both kids are his and he and his current girl friend are natural parents of the youngest kid and these three lived together all year.

They made it clear that due to something related to the previous girl friend, he would not be claiming the child. Therefore, he won't be HOH and she can be if she paid more than half for the housing upkeep since she is claiming the child. She would get the EIC too. Is my thinking ok here?

Seems unfair to married people.

Many thanks for all your comments.

Dennis

[RitaB]

You got that right, Dennis

Seems unfair to married people.

Seems like our tax system rewards both mediocrity and single parenthood. Sounds like subsidized cohabitation going on here. lol.

[taxea]

Taxea wrote:



The rules for HoH say absolutely nothing about a "single-adult household." The requirements are that the taxpayer must be unmarried, must have paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home, and must have a qualifying person. The fact that other adults may live in the same household is irrelevant.

BMK

I didn't say that it said anything about it. What I said was that the intent of the law was.....

[Jesse]

Did I hurt your feelings?

If the two live together then neither qualify for HOH which is meant for single-adult household.
Who do the kids belong to? If they are hers she takes them. If they are his he takes them.
Look at the TTB chart pages 3-15 through 17.

I would appreciate it if you would knock off the personal attacks. They are as unprofessional as your counter-part's were.

Please accept my apologies and let me rephrase, if two adults live together and one of the two pays for more than 50% of the cost of keeping up the home in which resides a qualifying child for purposes of the HOH rules - this person CAN claim HOH.

You might think the intent of the law is different, however you are not the decider.

This is another post were you had argued, again incorrectly, that if two adults reside in the same household, neither are eligible for the HOH status. That is incorrect, yet you keep presenting to us "students" that this is fact.

http://www.thetaxbook.com/forums/sho...sehold+ta xea

Again, please accept my apology and please know that I will try to refrain from the personal attacks and instead I will try to be as courteous as you are.

[AJsTax]

Jesse,

I am going way out the limb here and take a chance with one comment.
I have never considered stating the obvious facts to be a personal attack. If someone tells me I am wrong on a set of facts I learn from that and do the research to prove to myself what will work. If a opinion has been proven to be wrong on several well researched occasions it would be time to learn.