Eic

[spencer]

Single mother filing single (doesn't need HOH status). High school son lives with uncle except on weekends (to maintain harmony...son does not get along with mother) No father in the picture, Uncle does not claim dependency. Trying for EIC for the mother.
Relationship, age, support tests met. What do you think about "member of household" test? Mother's home is main home for son. Living with uncle is temporary until things settle down. Thanks for your comments/help.

[RitaB]

Don't think so

"Living with uncle" is not listed as one of the special circumstances for temporary absence (from Mom's home) on TTB 3-14 and 3-17. Even if uncle kidnapped the son, it's not a temporary absence from Mom's home cause uncle is a family member.

And, yes, it is possible that 'living with uncle" is listed in a pub or code. I admit I have not studied this in depth.

Ever notice that "studying" kinda looks like "student" and "dying"?

[spencer]

So, RitaB,

"Living with uncle" is not listed as one of the special circumstances for temporary absence (from Mom's home) on TTB 3-14 and 3-17. Even if uncle kidnapped the son, it's not a temporary absence from Mom's home cause uncle is a family member.

And, yes, it is possible that 'living with uncle" is listed in a pub or code. I admit I have not studied this in depth.

Ever notice that "studying" kinda looks like "student" and "dying"?

it's too much of a stretch to call the special circumstances "medical care"? Darn!

[RitaB]

I thought about

I thought "detention in a juvenile facility" would be possible. No wait, that's Mom's house. LOL.

[Black Bart]

As a practical matter,

I thought "detention in a juvenile facility" would be possible. No wait, that's Mom's house. LOL.

I think Rita's right and you're dead in the water (2 days a week X 52 equals 104 days out of 365 which ain't "more than half of 2009"). Still; in today's world of convuluted and completely crazy scientific theory, you may soon have a leg to stand on pleading "special circumstance: temporary absence due to illness." The following relevant quotes are from a recent George Will column.

"The...Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry's encyclopedia of supposed mental "disorders," is being revised...(it) defines "oppositional defiant disorder" as a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Symptoms include "often loses temper," "often deliberately annoys people" or "is often touchy." DSM omits this symptom: "is a teenager."

This DSM defines as "personality disorders" attributes that once were considered character flaws. "Antisocial personality disorder" is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal." "Histrionic personality disorder" is "excessive emotionality and attention-seeking." "Narcissistic personality disorder" involves "grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious." And so on.

If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will022810.php3

[spencer]

Quite a treatise

I love it. Now how about this: Is an aggressive stance, however tenuous, a violation of ethics?

[RitaB]

My opinion

In this situation, I think it is clear that Mom does not qualify for EIC. The child did NOT live with her more than 1/2 of the year, and his absence does not qualify as a temporary absence. I think you'd just be wrong, not aggressive, if you gave her EIC. Aggressive implies to me that the law is not clear or that it's a close call. I don't see how this is up for debate. All due respect and everything, ESPENCER.

[Black Bart]

Don't believe it's a question of ethics

I agree with this:

In this situation...I think you'd just be wrong...Aggressive implies...the law is not clear or that it's a close call. I don't see how this is up for debate...

[spencer]

Gang,

I got it loud and clear. Thank you very much.

[RitaB]

Well, it's just us two

I got it loud and clear. Thank you very much.

Hey, BB and I don't really constitute a gang. And I've been wrong before. I don't think BB has been...

But, if jainen could post, bet he could find some court case and put the smackdown on me. Actually, he might smack all three of us down. In the spirit of helping and all.

BB: I had a pastor with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. May be the worst possible character flaw for that vocation. And, it was a vocation, not a calling, in his case.

OK, off to church now!