HoH Filing Status

[Gary2]

What I am still confused about is how all the issues of divorced and separated parents were involved in this post. Original post clearly says girlfriend. Yes, poster uses the word custody but that is just a word and doesn't change the facts.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. The rules for separated parents apply even when the parents were never married, and the original post clearly states that the child was their child. Only the word "divorce" is inaccurate, but in this context, that's a nit.

[Black Bart]

Custodial?

What I am still confused about is how all the issues of divorced and separated parents were involved in this post. Original post clearly says girlfriend. Yes, poster uses the word custody but that is just a word and doesn't change the facts.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. The rules for separated parents apply even when the parents were never married, and the original post clearly states that the child was their child. Only the word "divorce" is inaccurate, but in this context, that's a nit.

Actually I was thinking as Gretel maybe was (about the "half-support" rules only/TTB 3-16) instead of the special rules for divorced/separated parents. I agree with you about the lightbulbs/showers/refrigerators and it's likely Dad DID support over half even with the kid gone 1 1/2 months, but for the special rules to apply wouldn't they have to have been "divorced, legally separated, separated under a written separation agreement, or lived apart at all times during the last six months of 2013"? At least that's what the book (TTB 3-17) states, but you're saying the fact that they were never married negates this? Where is that written? Or am I misunderstanding? Thanks.

[DonB]

but for the special rules to apply wouldn't they have to have been "divorced, legally separated, separated under a written separation agreement, or lived apart at all times during the last six months of 2013"? At least that's what the book (TTB 3-17) states, but you're saying the fact that they were never married negates this? Where is that written?

The not living together during the last 6 months is only for a married person to be considered single for HOH purposes. Since these two are both single, the 6 month rule would not be needed.

[BP.]

the special rules to apply wouldn't they have to have been "divorced, legally separated, separated under a written separation agreement, or lived apart at all times during the last six months of 2013"? At least that's what the book (TTB 3-17) states, but you're saying the fact that they were never married negates this? Where is that written?

The not living together during the last 6 months is only for a married person to be considered single for HOH purposes. Since these two are both single, the 6 month rule would not be needed.

Pub 17, p. 29. This verifies that the rule of not living together for last 6 months of the year for never-married parents does relate to the residency test for the dependency exemption.

Though the OP was about filing status, the thread then touched on dependency exemption. For dependency, the special rule for QC of more than one person is probably the rule to look at.

[Black Bart]

Pub 17, p. 29. This verifies that the rule of not living together for last 6 months of the year for never-married parents does relate to the residency test for the dependency exemption.

Though the OP was about filing status, the thread then touched on dependency exemption. For dependency, the special rule for QC of more than one person is probably the rule to look at.

Okay, but I guess what's confusing me is this:

...The rules for separated parents apply even when the parents were never married, and the original post clearly states that the child was their child. Only the word "divorce" is inaccurate, but in this context, that's a nit.

If the above "rules for separated parents" sentence refers only to dependency, then Dad could get HOH (assuming he paid over half house costs), but if it refers to filing status, then the custodial parent (wife) has more days with the kid than Dad and she gets HOH. True?

[BP.]

Okay, but I guess what's confusing me is this:

If the above "rules for separated parents" sentence refers only to dependency, then Dad could get HOH (assuming he paid over half house costs), but if it refers to filing status, then the custodial parent (wife) has more days with the kid than Dad and she gets HOH. True?

TTB 3-17, the rule you referenced (Children of Divorced or Separated Parents) is under "Dependency Tests" not 3-13, "Filing Status."

And, you're right, I don't think that rule applies here because, as you posted, they didn't live apart the required last six months of the year.

The rule to apply is the QC of More Than One Person rule.

[appelman]

Again we seem to be mixing up several concepts,

But this doesn't mean more than half the support on each of 365 days, otherwise no custodial parent would be able to be HoH if the kid spends a month during the summer in the other parent's household.

For example, if the child spends 200 nights with parent A, and 165 with parent B, and each parent pays 100% of the costs of their own household, then you would compare 200/365 of parent A's household costs against [200/365 of parent A's annual household costs plus 165/365 of parent B's annual household costs], to make sure it's more than half. Or, to be really precise, you'd use the actual household costs during the time the child is actually present, to account for the incredibly long hot showers, inevitable light bulbs left on, and the inability to keep the refrigerator stocked in the presence of a child.

In other words, the fact that the father lived with his parents for the last month and a half is only likely to a disqualification if the "majority" he paid during the time they were living together was such a slim majority that it doesn't outweigh the costs paid by his parents during the last month and a half. Or if the parents live in a mansion and shop at Whole Foods while he and the ex lived in a hovel and shopped at Wal-mart. And so on.

Support of a qualifying child is not an issue unless the child pays more than half of their own support. From the 1040 instructions for line 4 of Form 1040:

Test 2. You paid over half the cost of keeping up a home in
which you lived and in which one of the following also lived
for more than half of the year (if half or less, see Exception to
time lived with you).
1. Any person whom you can claim as a dependent. But do
not include:
a. Your child whom you claim as your dependent because
of the rule for Children of divorced or separated parents in the
line 6c instructions,
b. Any person who is your dependent only because he or
she lived with you for all of 2013, or
c. Any person you claimed as a dependent under a multiple
support agreement. See the line 6c instructions.

This in effect says that to claim a child for HoH, you must be the custodial parent, i.e. the parent with whom the child spends the greatest number of nights. If the number of nights are the same for both parents, the custodial parent will be the one with the greatest AGI. Again, note that support is not relevant.

[DonB]

Let me take a stab at this again. Back to the beginning; assume the mother had the child the greater number of nights, then she is the custodial parent and is entitled to the dependency exemption. As the non custodial parent, he can not claim the child (unless she releases the claim via a signed 8332 ). And, you must have a dependent child to claim HoH. Therefore he is SOL.

The “special rules” are there to allow him the dependency IF and only IF she gives him a 8332.

Am I thinking straight??

[ddoshan]

Let me take a stab at this again. Back to the beginning; assume the mother had the child the greater number of nights, then she is the custodial parent and is entitled to the dependency exemption. As the non custodial parent, he can not claim the child (unless she releases the claim via a signed 8332 ). And, you must have a dependent child to claim HoH. Therefore he is SOL.

The “special rules” are there to allow him the dependency IF and only IF she gives him a 8332.

Am I thinking straight??

The child is a qualifying child of both. So he could claim the exemption if she does not and would not need a form 8332. However, if both claimed the child, then she would win under the tie breaker rules. I got a little confused in regards to the HH filing status though.

[appelman]

I stand corrected once more!

BP and ddoshan have it right again. I was pursuing a red herring. Rule for divorced and separated parents is irrelevant (as is support). Either parent can claim ALL child benefits (no splitting!) to the extent they otherwise qualify. E.g. to claim HofH the parent still has to pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home for the year. Only if they can't agree will the tie-breaker rules cause them trouble.

[DonB]

Ditto

BP and ddoshan have it right again. I was pursuing a red herring. Rule for divorced and separated parents is irrelevant (as is support). Either parent can claim ALL child benefits (no splitting!) to the extent they otherwise qualify. E.g. to claim HofH the parent still has to pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home for the year. Only if they can't agree will the tie-breaker rules cause them trouble.

Agree--- lesson learned.

[Gary2]

Pub 17, p. 29. This verifies that the rule of not living together for last 6 months of the year for never-married parents does relate to the residency test for the dependency exemption.

Just to be clear, this 6-month requirement paragraph is specifically about the 8332-style splitting, not who gets to claim the entire dependency or how the tie breakers work.

The child is a qualifying child of both. So he could claim the exemption if she does not and would not need a form 8332. However, if both claimed the child, then she would win under the tie breaker rules. I got a little confused in regards to the HH filing status though.

I've been reading the original post as saying equal-time between the two parents, hence forcing the AGI tie-breaker. Did I miss something about who had the greater number of nights?

BP and ddoshan have it right again. I was pursuing a red herring. Rule for divorced and separated parents is irrelevant (as is support). Either parent can claim ALL child benefits (no splitting!) to the extent they otherwise qualify. E.g. to claim HofH the parent still has to pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home for the year. Only if they can't agree will the tie-breaker rules cause them trouble.

I may have barked up the red herring tree as well (if I may be forgiven a mixed metaphor). But I agree with your conclusion.

[taxea]

Traditionally in this situation with both parents not married...mother is considered the custodial parent and one has to consider whether the larger AGI comes into play.

[ddoshan]

Traditionally in this situation with both parents not married...mother is considered the custodial parent and one has to consider whether the larger AGI comes into play.

Mother might in most cases actually be the custodial parent. I wouldn't say is considered. If she is indeed the custodial parent, then who has the larger AGI would seem to be irrelevant.

[Black Bart]

Did we anawer the original poster's question?.

The child lived with both dad and mom from January to mid-November - so clearly child lived with dad more than 1/2 year. Either parent could claim the child as a dependent; and as Gretel noted, the tie breaker rules would apply if they cannot agree. The issue I am struggling with is the fact that he moved back with his parents and did not pay to maintain a home for the last 1 1/2 months of the year. Does this disqualify him from HoH?

By now the OP would probably like to have us all shot, but the answer seems to be "No, it does not disqualify him from HOH;"

And the reason is (I think ):

...Rule for divorced and separated parents is irrelevant (as is support)...to claim HofH the parent still has to pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home for the year. Only if they can't agree will the tie-breaker rules cause them trouble.