Cousins

[Black Bart]

ATX program says that is not a valid relationship for dependency exemption. I thought it was (if they lived with you all year, etc., etc.). Anybody else?

[DonPriebe]

If you're e-filing ...

From Pub 1346, the allowed relationships [for e-filing] are:

"CHILD", "FOSTERCHILD", "GRANDCHILD", "GRANDPARENT",
"PARENT", "BROTHER", "SISTER", "AUNT", "UNCLE",
"NEPHEW", "NIECE", "NONE", "SON", "DAUGHTER", "OTHER"

[RLymanC]

Bart

Is ANYONE lives with you all year and you provide over 50% of that "PERSONS" support you have a dependent.

[DonPriebe]

Unless ...

Is ANYONE lives with you all year and you provide over 50% of that "PERSONS" support you have a dependent.

Unless that person is your spouse, or is the qualifying child of another taxpayer, or is a non-citizen and you're both living in Bermuda, or they make over $3300, or ...

[Larmil]

Cousin is Other

ATX program says that is not a valid relationship for dependency exemption. I thought it was (if they lived with you all year, etc., etc.). Anybody else?

I think in this case you use the relationshop "other".

[Snaggletooth]

Shacking Up

What about the dependency exemption if co-habitation violates local law?

At some point in the past, the IRS disallowed this one. Haven't looked in a while.

[ChEAr$]

Or

I think in this case you use the relationshop "other".

I use the term "None." It works.
even for a cousin.

Even for a Southern cousin.

Unless you marry her.

[Black Bart]

Other

I think in this case you use the relationshop "other".

Yeah, that's what I ended up doing and it went through okay.

[Black Bart]

New York auditor / Arkansas lawyer

What about the dependency exemption if co-habitation violates local law?

At some point in the past, the IRS disallowed this one. Haven't looked in a while.

Had interesting discussions on this subject in '99 with IRS agent in NY and Arkie lawyer, while trying to decide whether or not to claim somebody's live-in girfriend.

The lawyer said some states recognize common-law marriages and some, including ours, don't, but although archaic adultery laws aren't enforced, they're still on the books here and are technically a violation of local law. He also pointed out that "local law" means state law -- not county or town. Strangely, if CL marriages orginate in another state which recognizes them and they move here, then our state also recognizes them. But anyway, he didn't know whether or not IRS here would disallow dependency. We used to never do this, but everybody else seems to be, so I've claimed some since with no IRS kickback (which, of course, doesn't prove a thing).

Then I called IRS and got a knowledgeable and friendly upstate NY auditor. He agreed with the lawyer about common law and local law violation. He said it's apparently not in violation in NY and he/they normally allow it, but if he were auditing in Arkansas he probably would not. We agreed there's no broad consensus -- that it would likely be interpreted according to IRS district procedure and/or discretion of individual agents.

He said most returns he has seen list the girl as "other." I said I'd seen "friend" used by some tax preparers and he had not heard of that, but thought it would be alright to use.

[Oxtrainer]

Living together.

Pub 17 says if it againt state law its a no no.
I went thru about 5 NC agents and it is a definite no no in NC
I asked if the clients said they were not co habiting, just living together.
The answer was to paraphrase (it won't fly)
I would not take the chance. Some of our agents
are not very understanding.

[Larmil]

Pub 17 says if it againt state law its a no no.
I went thru about 5 NC agents and it is a definite no no in NC
I asked if the clients said they were not co habiting, just living together.
The answer was to paraphrase (it won't fly)
I would not take the chance. Some of our agents
are not very understanding.

Your state laws may be very clear but some are not. In a court case in Missouri the court determined that so long as the couple's conduct did not rise to the level of lewdness that would violate the Missouri statute, the couple's relationship did not violate local law. Therefore, the taxpayer could claim a dependency exemption for the man with whom she lived. So apparantly here it is not a case of co-habitating but doing so in a lewd manner that would deny the exemption.

.

[Black Bart]

Lewd local lovers

...Missouri...court determined...so long as the couple's conduct did not rise to the level of lewdness...the...relationship did not violate local law...

.

Tough luck, NC Ox. Apparently you were unaware that Missouri and Arkansas are in the forefront of liberal innovation and on the cutting edge of social change/thought, etc. But, somebody has to live in the boonies.

P.S. Wonder what exactly would qualify as "lewd" conduct while you're doin' some of that there cohabitin'? You think maybe if some mornin' a person ran out and got the paper in his/her drawers? I bet that would probably lewdalize you in Missouri (okay to grin, but not to "bare" it).

[Brad Imsdahl]

I researched this for the "other" guy's newsletter I once wrote for, and the last Tax Court cases I could find that dealt with illegal relationships under local law date back to the 1950s and 1960s (Untermann, 1962 and Turnipseed, 1957). The IRS no longer appears to be taking the issue to court.

[LTS]

untermann & turnipseed?

this isn't a pull my leg post, is it?

[JG EA]

Live together

Are you really going to ask if they are doing anything illegal? Roommates are never illegal as far as I know. So, who are we to assume something untoward is taking place?