never married NCP's no longer can claim exemptions?

[too_short]

I recently had my attourney look into this via his firms tax office.  Apparently there's been changes to the rules on claiming dependents.  They looked at publilcation 501 (Exemptions, Standard Deductions...)
for the year 2003 and noted changes from 2002.  For those of you familiar with the rules regarding claiming exemptions from the previous year, publication 501 now states:

"these special rules for divorced or seperated parents also apply to parents who never married"

among other changes.  Moreover, it doesn't look like never married NCP's who provide more than half the support can claim the exemption unless the custoidal parent releases the exemption claim...

Anyone know how this change came to be?  

[patton]

I have read this information several times and talked with my CPA and I cannot find where you are getting this information.  Please state the publication this is in.  I cannot tell one thing has changed for UNMARRIED parents.


Thanks,

[patton]

TAX TIP FOR FATHERS OF
CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK
(Revised)

January, 2004 PLEASE NOTE: The Internal Revenue Service has (once again) changed its interpretation of the law regarding the "special support test for divorced and separated parents.

The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads" that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

For the past several years, it was the official Internal Revenue Service (IRS) position that the entitlement to claim the tax exemption for a child of never-married parents was not controlled by the "special support test" (commonly known as the "custody rule") but rather by the "regular support test" (taxpayer must have provided more than 50% of the dependent's total support).

That has now (once again) changed. Effective with the 2003 tax year, IRS now says the "custody rule" DOES apply to never-married parents. The change of IRS position is apparently the result of the decision of the US Tax Court in the case of King and Lopez v. Commissioner, 121 TC #12 (9/26/2003), which gave a revised interpretation to Internal Revenue Code § 152(e), the law creating the "special support test" for divorced and separated parents.

So, for tax years 2003 and thereafter ............ The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads" that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

In view of the US Tax Court decision in the King/Lopez case and in view of the recent change of the IRS position, a non-custodial never-married parent should NOT claim the child as a dependent (regardless of how much support was paid) UNLESS the non-custodial parent's tax return is accompanied by a completed IRS Form 8332 signed by the custodial parent.

Another blow to father's.  I guess my question would be IF you retain primary custody at some point in the year  who gets to claim child if it's not addressed in the decree?
 
 

[snapplegirl69]

So my df will have to try to get bm to sign the 8332?How come she can let her mom claim him and df doesnt have a say in it?nice..

[Ref]

You need to have the custodial either sign the 8332 or have it in writing that she/he will give you the years.

It may or may not be worth the fight.


Good Luck
Ref

[snapplegirl69]

What I cant believe they can receive cs,welfare,not support the child with their own noney,AND STILL receive this money.What a bunch of bull

[dontunderstand]

I think the whole thing is ASS-BACKWARDS.  You really think any PFB is going to sign anything that will make them NOT get FREE money.  HAHAHA.  It is a bunch of BS!  In our case we pay CS EVERY month and buy SD nearly EVERYTHING she needs and because she lives with BM who abandons (doesn't pay for crap) every single dwelling she ever lives in, she gets to claim her.  Kind of makes you go huuummmmm....

[snapplegirl69]

It definately is.Nice how the bm's can cry poor,but yet get like $3000 back just because they have a kid,and dont even support the kid.our bm is on welfare w?a paralegal degree.But my stupid state will pay her to sit on her fat butt,collect cs,then give her MORE money around tax time for mooching on the system?I dont even want to get into all the cs AND gas my fiancee pays.ss lives 2 hours away and bm WILL NOT help with rides.Im guessing 6+ grand this year,but i guess she is entitled to that money,no the person actually working for it

[Avaya]

Beginning in 2005 the definition of a dependent has been revised.  Whoever pays for half of the dependents support gets to claim the child.   See IRC Section 152 for more information.

[ER]

>Beginning in 2005 the definition of a dependent has been
>revised.  Whoever pays for half of the dependents support gets
>to claim the child.   See IRC Section 152 for more
>information.


What is consider half of support payment??

Example, my ex pays me $237.00 monthly for our son. That barely covers the cost of day care  at $400.00 plus monthly, let alone other expenses for our son. I am the residential parent and my attorney gave her the tax right off till my son is 18 and I never signed an 8332 or anything granting this. This was done the dayof the trial and I had no say. (Attorney has been fired)

What about those parents that truly use the money for the child as in my case, I still pay for everything for my son and yet I have to pay every single year in taxes because I am self employed. Why can't I get the tax exemption since definately pay more in support of our son?

My ex has a daughter from a previous relationship and gets big $$ ever year at tax time. So why should she benefit for doing nothing but giving her son peanuts. I would be more than happy to split alternating years, but she refuses. So I have no choioce.