Twenty five year old spent 155 days in US in 2016. The other 210 days she was travelling in multiple countries. The way I read the law, this disqualifies her from the EIC, correct?
-
-
You are probably right, but you might have an argument to claim it.
The law says the requirement is that taxpayer's "principal place of abode is in the United States for more than one-half of such taxable year".
For dependency purposes, if a child has a "temporary absence" form the parent, that time is still considered time with the parent. Court cases have ruled (based on Congressional Conference Reports) that extends to the Residency Test for EIC with a child (see link).
However, I have NOT found anything that documents that the "temporary absence" rule would extend to the requirement for the "principal place of abode is in the United States". In my opinion, it would be a logical extension of the rule, so you might want to try it if you determine it would qualify as a "temporary absence" (such as a vacation).
On the other hand, for the small amount of credit (I'm assuming no kids), you may not want to deal with a questionable claim. -
-
Citizen YES
Yes she is a citizen. She meets all tests. The only issue is she was out of the country for over 200 days.Comment
-
Answer Is
I called NATP.
The researcher found evidence that you have to be physically present in US for more than 1/2 of the year.Comment
-
Unfortunately, I don't give a lot of credence to NATP's answers. While most of them are accurate, I have seen several that are clearly wrong, and several more that are questionable.
I am not necessarily saying they are wrong in this case, but without substantial citations, I don't put much stock in their answers.Comment
-
If you ask them to research a question, they will send you the specific cite in writing.Comment
Comment