Decedent filing status

[MichaelG]

Can the final return for a decedent use head of household filing status, assuming all dependency and support tests were met prior to the date of death (Sept. 10, 2011)?

[Jesse]

I think only if they actually lived apart for the last six months of the year. Also note temporary absences for special circumstances, such as medical care count as time lived in the home. (TTB pg 3-14)

So you'll need to look at the whole picture, but I know of no special circumstance in which death will qualify for the Head of Household. In year(s) after death the surviving spouse may qualify for Qualifying Widow(er).

[okie1tax]

Hoh

I would very much like to read any arguments against.

[WhiteOleander]

I see no reference in the OP of the decedent being married. So, if the decedent was single and otherwise would have qualified for HOH I do believe that HOH filing status can be claimed for the final return.

[Jesse]

My bad

I apologize for reading too much into the original post, I best drink my coffee before jumping on the Board!!

Agree, see no reason why HOH can not be used for the qualifying deceased.

[WhiteOleander]

I apologize for reading too much into the original post, I best drink my coffee before jumping on the Board!!

Agree, see no reason why HOH can not be used for the qualifying deceased.

I think that it is actually in the IRS code that we drink coffee before attempting to tackle anything "tax" related.

[Koss]

Coffee

It's not in the code. It's in the Treasury Regulations.

But the Sixth Circuit ruled in February of this year that the "Coffee Reg" exceeded the scope of the Secretary's authority.

BMK

[Burke]

Can the final return for a decedent use head of household filing status, assuming all dependency and support tests were met prior to the date of death (Sept. 10, 2011)?

Note that one may qualify for HOH even if not claiming dependent. See rules.

[Gary2]

Note that one may qualify for HOH even if not claiming dependent. See rules.

Which is not to say that there are no dependency tests or requirements for HoH, merely that there are some circumstances in which it's not necessary to claim the qualifying person as a dependent in order for the taxpayer to claim HoH.

Unfortunately, every so often I'll read or learn about a DIY type who thought "of course I'm the head of my household, since I'm the only one in it, but since you asked, here's my son's name and SSN." Eighteen months later, the IRS wants to know how this person can be HoH when the son filed a joint return, at a different address, with $120K income.

[FEDUKE404]

Head of MY household!

Which is not to say that there are no dependency tests or requirements for HoH, merely that there are some circumstances in which it's not necessary to claim the qualifying person as a dependent in order for the taxpayer to claim HoH.

Unfortunately, every so often I'll read or learn about a DIY type who thought "of course I'm the head of my household, since I'm the only one in it, but since you asked, here's my son's name and SSN." Eighteen months later, the IRS wants to know how this person can be HoH when the son filed a joint return, at a different address, with $120K income.

Many moons ago NC had a HOH filing status that was loosely structured as "having your own household" (paying rent/utilities/etc). It was quite common for a "single" person with the IRS to legitimately file a "HOH" with NC. To make matters worse, all employee/investment expenses were adjustments to income for the state!

Once the IRS/NC tax returns started operating under the same guidelines, NC has gone with the same rules the feds employ as related to the need for a qualifying individual (not necessarily a dependent) et al. This has not stopped many folks from feeling they still can be HOH (both US/NC).

And then there is the group that wants to file as "married filing single......"

FE

[Golden Rocket]

Original Question

Let me make sure I understand the original question.

All support, residency, etc. requirements entitle this person for head of household. Is the question:

a. Sufficient requirements for the entire year have been met by the date of death.
b. Sufficient requirements have been met if the entire year was compressed into the
dates encompassed by the lifespan.

These are two different questions. For example, one consideration is a child, whether a dependent or not living in the house for more than half the year. What if this person lived in the house for only 162 days? This is less than half of year, but more than half of the time if measured from January 1 to September 10.

[Gary2]

Let me make sure I understand the original question.

All support, residency, etc. requirements entitle this person for head of household. Is the question:

a. Sufficient requirements for the entire year have been met by the date of death.
b. Sufficient requirements have been met if the entire year was compressed into the
dates encompassed by the lifespan.

These are two different questions. For example, one consideration is a child, whether a dependent or not living in the house for more than half the year. What if this person lived in the house for only 162 days? This is less than half of year, but more than half of the time if measured from January 1 to September 10.

My quick take on this is that it must be a (for the most part). In other words, the qualifying person, if not subject to the parental exception, must live in the decedent's household for half of the calendar year (assuming a calendar year taxpayer), and the taxpayer must pay more than half the cost of a full year's worth of maintaining the household.

From the way the original question was worded, I'm going to guess that there aren't any real questions over whether the usual qualifications were met. So the pertinent question is whether it matters that the taxpayer didn't actually maintain the household for the entire year (but did pay more than half the cost of a full year's worth of maintenance).

[MichaelG]

Thanks to all who have replied. I think Gary2 best summarized the reason for my original question. What made me raise the question was the fact that the taxpayer will not have maitained the household for the entire year. Just to clarify, here are additional facts:

The taxpayer was a widow (2nd husband died in 2010). Approx $35K of earned income.
Her son lived with her from January 1, 2011 until going away to college around Sept. 1st.
He was a high school student until graduation in June, then a college freshman beginning in September. Under age 24 at end of 2011.
He will have income of around $4K - far less than half of his support for the year.
The son's father (taxpayer's first husband - divorced in 2002 or 2003) paid child support and is paying son's college expenses.

Here's what I'm thinking so far:

Taxpayer's final return will be HOH with or without son as a dependent.
Normally, son has been claimed as his father's dependent (non-custodial parent) because his income is much higher and the exemption is worth more than to the mother.
For 2011, it might make sense to put son on mom's return as dependent to maximize education tax credit. (Dad's income is too high.)

Further thoughts?

[JohnH]

Well, without getting into the specifics of your client's situation, it isn't a matter of which return you "put" the dependency exemption on. It's a matter of who provided over half the dependent's support. In many cases you just have to do the math and determine who is entitled to the dependency exemption (regardles of whether or not the exemption is of any benefit to them). Unfair sometimes, but true.

[Gary2]

Well, without getting into the specifics of your client's situation, it isn't a matter of which return you "put" the dependency exemption on. It's a matter of who provided over half the dependent's support. In many cases you just have to do the math and determine who is entitled to the dependency exemption (regardles of whether or not the exemption is of any benefit to them). Unfair sometimes, but true.

That's the old rule (pre 2004, I think). The current rule for qualified children is only that they not support themselves. As long as that's true, and they meet the other qualified child requirements, the question of who, if anyone, provided more than half the support is irrelevant to who gets the claim the QC.

In this case, with only $4K of income, it's indicative that the son did not pay more than half his own support. Be careful, since the son's contribution to support is based on what he actually provided from his own available assets - which could include student loans, savings accounts in his name, etc.

It's not uncommon for divorced parents who can cooperate to negotiate which parent takes the dependency each year. Absent any restrictions in the divorce decree, the 8332 is totally optional on the part of the custodial parent.

The more interesting question to me, in this case, would be who could sign the 8332, if it is needed. Is that something that the personal administrator responsible for the final tax return is authorized to sign?