Qualifying Child/Relative

[Gretel]

Gear Up

I believe their manual is also wrong on page 310, example.

If child is over 18, no student and earns under the limit of $3,200 it now qualifies as a qualifying relative. Since this child is not a qualifying child of someone else HOH status can be claimed, right?

[Bees Knees]

I believe their manual is also wrong on page 310, example.

If child is over 18, no student and earns under the limit of $3,200 it now qualifies as a qualifying relative. Since this child is not a qualifying child of someone else HOH status can be claimed, right?

Assuming the child is the taxpayer's dependent, then yes, HOH status is allowed.

What does their manual say on page 310?

[Jim R]

Qualifying Child

Even though Ashley can not claim Tommy as a dependent because she is a dependent, she still can claim Tommy for Child Credit. The IRS has a new form just for this situation. It is form 8901. You can also use this form to claim child credit for all your married children 16 year old or younger who live with you.

The IRS thinks of every thing.

[Bees Knees]

Another twist

Back to Tom. He can't claim Tommy as a dependent. He can claim Ashley as a dependent, assuming their relationship is not violating local law. But Tom can't take HOH on Ashley because although she is Tom's qualifying relative, she is so under the rule that she lived with Tom the entire year.

Contrary to what one source says, a qualifying relative that is your dependent does not necessarily give you HOH status.

[Bucky]

There is a simple solution. Get married in the next week.

[Gretel]

Assuming the child is the taxpayer's dependent, then yes, HOH status is allowed.

What does their manual say on page 310?

It says child can be claimed as dependent (qualifying relative) but no HOH or EIC possible. Since you could never claim EIC in this case I didn't bring it up.

[Joseph]

member

on page 1-12 of TheTaxBook 2005 tax year, under the heading of "Uniform Definition of a qualifying child". Last paragraph in Tie breaking rules "If neither parent claims the child, then the child is a qualifying child for the person who has the highest AGI"

According to this Tom has the right to claim Tommy

[Bees Knees]

on page 1-12 of TheTaxBook 2005 tax year, under the heading of "Uniform Definition of a qualifying child". Last paragraph in Tie breaking rules "If neither parent claims the child, then the child is a qualifying child for the person who has the highest AGI"

According to this Tom has the right to claim Tommy

No, because Tom is not a parent of Tommy. He is just Ashley's boyfriend. Tommy can never by a qualifying child of Tom unless he adopts Tommy, or marries Ashley.

The tie breaker rules only apply to the qualifying child rules, not the qualifying relative rules.

[KBTS]

on page 1-12 of TheTaxBook 2005 tax year, under the heading of "Uniform Definition of a qualifying child". Last paragraph in Tie breaking rules "If neither parent claims the child, then the child is a qualifying child for the person who has the highest AGI"

According to this Tom has the right to claim Tommy

According to original post, Tom is not his father. Therefore he cannot claim Tommy, as others have explained. If he was the father, then the tie breaker rules might come into play if dad and mom could not agree on who would claim the child.

[Bees Knees]

In other words, Tommy could be claimed as a dependent under the qualifying child rules if Grandma also lives in the house and tries to claim Tommy. Tommy would be a qualifying child of Grandma under the relationship rules, so if Ashley does not claim Tommy, then Grandma could under the tie breaker rules.