Jan 1 Birthday

[Snaggletooth]

Sometimes I think I'm like Rip Van Winkle, and ashamed to admit I sleep through relevant changes in taxation. But that may be exactly what has happened to the Jan 1 birthday.

Back in the day a child born on January 1 was under definition to be claimed as a dependent for the preceding tax year. I don't see this anymore, looking at the Tax Book there is no reference to it. Instead the verbage centers around the child's status as of the end of the year.

I think this has changed and I didn't pick up on it. The only reference I see to the "good ole days" is the checkboxes for additional standard deductions for people over 65.

Anyone know when this changed?

[FEDUKE404]

New one on me!

Sometimes I think I'm like Rip Van Winkle, and ashamed to admit I sleep through relevant changes in taxation. But that may be exactly what has happened to the Jan 1 birthday.

Back in the day a child born on January 1 was under definition to be claimed as a dependent for the preceding tax year. I don't see this anymore, looking at the Tax Book there is no reference to it. Instead the verbage centers around the child's status as of the end of the year.

I think this has changed and I didn't pick up on it. The only reference I see to the "good ole days" is the checkboxes for additional standard deductions for people over 65.

Anyone know when this changed?

I don't ever recall a child born on January 1st being eligible for a personal exemption for the previous year that ended "the day before."

While the IRS frequently throws us some curveballs, that approach would seem not to follow in any way, shape, or form simple logic.

There are some weird rules, such as for kiddie tax, that follow something along the lines of "If a child is born on Jan. 1, the IRS treats the child as having been the same age on December 31 of the previous year as he or she was on Jan. 1 of the current tax year."

Fortunately I have no clients/exemptions with a 01/01 birthday, so this issue has never caused me any stress.

But if anyone (including Snaggletooth) has a valid cite, I would love to educate myself on that issue!

FE

[JG EA]

Also there are lots of rules for someone being 65 in the previous year if born on January 1st of the next year.

[Snaggletooth]

Dunno

I dunno. Never said it made sense, only said it used to be. Now I'm worried that I am not just guilty of Rip Van Winkle, I may be certifiably nuts.

May have had something to do with the delays which occur at medical facilities between the time of actual event versus ultimate recording...this can sometimes be several hours and still happens occasionally.

I do notice in Pub 501 that the "year" extends until Jan 1 for purposes of enforcing the kiddie tax. JG says there are many such instances. This doesn't make any more sense than allowing the dependency...

[Kram BergGold]

Software says

I also remember something about getting an exemption when born on 1/1 of the next year or maybe it was when turning 65. In either event my software allows neither.

[Redneck]

Ttb 3-12

This is the only reference that I can come up with may not count.Chart A notes.
Happy New Tax Year to all

[New York Enrolled Agent]

The child born on January 1 is not a dependent for the prior year. At one time, I believe there was some controversy amongst preparers over the way the IRS discussed attainment of a certain age. I think Rev Ruling 2003-72 settled that. Here is the headnote:

[start]For purposes of each of the provisions identified in this revenue ruling, a child attains a given age on the anniversary of the date that the child was born. For example, a child born on January 1, 1987, attains the age of 17 on January 1, 2004.[end]

[PIGLEE]

I remember that law, I don't remember seeing any change.

BUT in a test return I am doing, I put a child in with birthday of 1-1-12, and it accepted the dependent. BUT if I put in birthday of 1-2-12, I got a warning, and I did not get the dependent. So I think the law is still there somewhere. I know for age, 65, that works for the extra standard deduction, because I had one of those not to long ago, and It isurprised me.

[Gene V]

I remember that law, I don't remember seeing any change.

BUT in a test return I am doing, I put a child in with birthday of 1-1-12, and it accepted the dependent. BUT if I put in birthday of 1-2-12, I got a warning, and I did not get the dependent. So I think the law is still there somewhere. I know for age, 65, that works for the extra standard deduction, because I had one of those not to long ago, and It isurprised me.

I believe your tax program is in error for the child. However the age 65 is correct.

from Pub. 17
If you were born on January 1, 1947, you are considered to be age 65 at the end of 2011.

[Kram BergGold]

Garbage in /Garbage out

My software does give the 65 and over extra standard deduction for a birthdate of 1/1.
I had entered the birthdate incorrectly.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

My software does give the 65 and over extra standard deduction for a birthdate of 1/1.

The income tax regulations specifically state that if a taxpayer's 65th birthday is January 1 in a given year, then the taxpayer attains age 65 on the last day of the calendar year immediately preceding. (See the last sentence of Reg. §1.151-1(c)(2))

[ChEAr$]

And Piglee still has a problem. I wonder what kind of software that is?

[FEDUKE404]

Getting off track a bit

I thought the OP was related to being able to claim (as example) a 2011 personal exemption for a baby who will not make his/her entrance into the world until this coming Sunday (January 1st of 2012).

Old age will do some strange things to you, but I've never heard of that scenario being applicable...

Granted, a lot of circumstances exist where a person with a January 1st birthday may be "considered" such and such an age for various tax situations, as others have already noted here.

But I think the ONLY way the aforementioned new arrival may become a 2011 personal exemption would be to tell mom to get things completed before the stroke of midnight.

FE

[erchess]

These things happen

Snags you are no more crazy than I am. (Sorry if that is cold comfort .) I and several others have been told before that something we believed to be true about tax law not only wasn't true any more it had never been true. To me this is a perfect example of why we need Professional Liability Insurance. We have so much to keep up with that errors are bound to occur. Yet many errors look very foolish to a jury of the general public that has been well educated in the bright line we crossed and has not had to keep up with any other aspect of tax law other than what applies to them personally.

[oceanlovin'ea]

I don't remember anything in taxes about being considered born in one tax year but actually being born later.
I do remember some "teenagers" that used to like to say they were 16 before they were actually 16 using the idea that they were alive for 9 months in the womb before actually being born. So they were 9 months older than their birth date. Nobody bought it!

Linda, EA