|Home| |Site Map| |Chat| |List of Forums| |Search Site|

Tax Brake with Robert G. Nath, Esq.


"Your Confusion over a 'child' - It's now Official"

-
Week of 4/29/02 -
For years, literally hundreds of millions of honest people (and some not so honest) have tried to take advantage of the tax code's favorable provisions regarding “children.” The problem is not only that each child-related benefit has a definition, but also that these definitions are hard to understand, and they conflict with each other.

The term “child” may have slightly or radically different meaning for purposes of the dependent exemption; head of household status, child tax credit, dependent care tax credit, and the earned income credit.

Good news: The United States Government feels your pain. So much so, that the Treasury Department is launching a major simplification initiative. It will start with a “single definition of child….” This revision takes into account some of the problems of divorced or separated households.

Here's the Department's proposal, in its own words (from a news release):

[Treasury] Secretary O'Neill: "The tax code is an abomination. It runs unnecessarily to thousands of pages. Many Americans hire tax preparers because they cannot understand the forms and instructions and they are afraid of being punished if they make a mistake. We can take immediate steps to restore some common sense to the tax code and make it simpler and more fair."

"One of the unseen consequences of our tax code's complexity is the sense it leaves with taxpayers that the system is unfair and that others pay less tax because of special advantages. When most taxpayers believe that others aren't paying their fair share, compliance with our voluntary tax system begins to fall off - a dangerous proposition for a democracy.

"Simplifying the tax code will reduce taxpayer burden by making it easier for taxpayers to understand and comply with the law, and will increase the sense of fairness--that everyone is being treated the same."

Proposals on the Tax Treatment of Families and Children

The first group of proposals will address the tax treatment of families and children. Topics will include:

  • Uniform definition of a qualifying child,

  • Determining taxpayers' filing status (e.g., head of household),

  • Earned Income Tax Credit, and

  • Taxation of dependents.
To see how this can confuse a taxpayer, consider the example of a shared household. Now it is possible for three different family members, who live together for a full year, to claim the same child for at least four different tax benefits:

  • The grandmother who provides more than half the costs of maintaining the home in which the child resides could claim head of household filing status;

  • The child's aunt who provides over half the child's support and cares for the child as her own may claim the dependency exemption and the child tax credit; and

  • The child's mother may claim the EITC.
Yet, none of these women may claim the child and dependent care tax credit, even if they work and pay for the care of the child. To claim that credit, one taxpayer must both support the child and maintain the household in which she and the child reside. Under the proposal, the child's mother (or if the family prefers, the grandmother or aunt) could claim all four tax benefits.

Proposal

Uniform definition of qualifying child
A uniform definition of qualifying child would be adopted for purposes of determining eligibility for the dependency exemption, the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, head of household filing status, and the EITC. A qualifying child would have to meet the following three tests:

  • Relationship--The child must be the taxpayer's son, daughter, stepchild, sibling, stepsibling, or a descendant of such individuals. Foster children placed with the taxpayer by authorized placement agencies would satisfy the relationship test. If the child is the taxpayer's sibling or stepsibling or a descendant of any such individual, the taxpayer must care for the child as if the child were his or her own child.

  • Residence--The child must live with the taxpayer in the same principal place of abode in the United States for over half the year. Military personnel on extended active duty outside the United States would be considered to be residing in the United States. As under current law, the taxpayer and child are considered to live together even if one or both are temporarily absent due to special circumstances such as illness, education, business, vacation, or military service.

  • Age--The child must be under the age of 19, a full-time student if over age 18 and under age 24, or totally and permanently disabled. However, as under current law, qualifying children (who are not disabled) must be under age 13 for purposes of the child and dependent care tax credit and under 17 (whether or not disabled) to qualify for the child tax credit.
Neither the support nor gross income tests would apply to qualifying children who meet the relationship, residence, and age tests. In addition, taxpayers would no longer be required to meet a household maintenance test when claiming the child and dependent care tax credit.

If more than one taxpayer claims the same qualifying child, then the following tiebreaker rules would apply:

  • If only one of the claimants is the child's parent, then he or she would receive the tax benefit.

  • If the child's parents do not file a joint return and both claim the child on separate returns, then the tax benefit would accrue to the parent with whom the child resides the longest. If both parents reside with the child for the same length of time, then the benefit would accrue to the parent with the highest adjusted gross income.

  • If the child's parents do not claim the child, then the tax benefit would accrue to the claimant with the highest adjusted gross income.

Tax Brake with Robert G. Nath

FAMILY LAW Advisor® HOME PAGE

Suggest this page to a friend.

© 2002 LawTek Media Group, LLC
all rights reserved

This website and the linked publications contain the opinions and ideas of its author(s) and are designed to provide useful discussion to the reader on the subject matter covered.  Any references to products or services do not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation.  The advice or discussion presented in this website or linked publications are not intended for use by any particular person and do not constitute the rendering of legal, accounting, financial, or other advise of any type.  The publisher and the author(s) specifically disclaim any responsibility for any liability, loss or risk (financial, personal or otherwise) which may be claimed or incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and/or application of any of the contents of this website or the linked publications.  Information on this website and linked publications is provided "as is" without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.  All intellectual property, including without limitation trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights, are the property of Robert G. Nath, Esq. and any unauthorized use thereof is strictly prohibited.  Any person is hereby authorized to view the information available on this website for informational purposes only.  No part of the information on this site may be used, redistributed, copied or reproduced without the prior written consent of Mr. Robert Nath or LawTek Media Group, LLC.  Linked websites are not under the control of Mr. Robert Nath or LawTek Media Group, LLC and no representation whatsoever is made about any other website (or information found therein) which you may access through this website.  Links are provided only as a convenience and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsements or acceptance of any liabilith whatsoever for the contents or the use of such website.

IN NO EVENT WILL MR. NATH BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WITH ANY USE OF THIS WEBSITE, OR ON ANY OTHER LINKED WEBSITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY LOST PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF PROGRAMS OR OTHER DATA ON YOUR INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF WE ARE EXPRESSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.  THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION FOUND HEREIN REMAINS WITH THE RECIPIENT.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE AND ANY LINKED WEBSITE OR PUBLICATIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, THE USER OR READER AGREES IN ADVANCE WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUCH USE.

No information or materials posted here are intended to constitute legal advice, nor can we guarantee the accuracy of posted information, especially as to each individual situation. LawTek does not independently check the information contained herein and does not refer or endorse any product, service, or firm. This site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship; local counsel should always be consulted.
http://www.divorcenet.com/qday/tax116.html