Monday, April 21, 2003
IRS Can�t Read the EIC Tables
Lakim Love Allah fathered two sons by Sandra Clarke, and claimed exemptions for them. He is not married to Ms. Clarke, and did not attach a release of exemptions from her. Tax Court states:
Petitioner testified that he resided in an apartment during the year in issue with his two sons, with Ms. Clarke, and with Ms. Clarke�s mother. During this time and through the time of trial, however, petitioner used his father�s address as his own mailing address. He testified that he kept this as his mailing address because �you never know how things might work out.� Petitioner did not state a specific date when he moved into the apartment, or state how long he remained there. Petitioner failed to provide any witnesses or documentation corroborating his assertions.
Mr. Allah lost the exemptions and the use of his sons as qualifying children for the Earned Income Credit. His trip to Tax Court was not entirely useless, however. Tax Court states:
Petitioner is an eligible individual, and he earned $8,701 during the year in issue. Respondent argues in his trial memorandum that taxpayers without qualifying children who earn in excess of $5,280 are not entitled to an earned income credit. This is incorrect. According to the tables prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to section 32(f), the lowest income amount at which the earned income credit is no longer available in this situation is $10,380 for taxable year 2000. See also sec. 32(a), (b), (j).
The IRS couldn�t read the EIC tables correctly?!? Incompetent fools or vindictive bastards?