who maintains as his home a household which constitutes for the taxable year the principal place of abode (as a member of such household) of a dependent
(i) who (within the meaning of section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof) is a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the taxpayer, and
(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under section 151.
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be considered as maintaining a household only if over half of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable year is furnished by such individual
(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under section 151.
who maintains as his home a household which constitutes for the taxable year the principal place of abode (as a member of such household) of a dependent (within the meaning of section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof)
(i) who is a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the taxpayer, and
(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under section 151.
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be considered as maintaining a household only if over half of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable year is furnished by such individual
(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under section 151.
Hence, if I ignore this minor point, my concern lies with 2(a)(1)(B)(ii) above where it states "and with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable year under section 151." I don't see how that fits with 2(a)(1)(B)(i). Am I missing something or doesn't a dependent qualifying for an exemption need to meet the "un-relaxed" rules?
There are two possibilities that I can surmise from this.
- §151 generally won't allow the deduction unless those subsections of §152 are met for a Qualifying Child or a Qualifying Relative. Hence, it would seem to contradict the "relaxed" rules of (i) which are not similarly relaxed for (ii) and thus, the child who does not need to meet the rules for (i) would need to meet them for (ii).
- It is saying that these rules are relaxed for both (i) and (ii) thus allowing an exemption for the son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter who met the "relaxed" rules of (i).
Please hold back on the attacks since I am not claiming that my interpretation is in any way correct. I am just trying to add to the discussion of what these may or may not mean.
I have been pondering this for some time.
Leave a comment: