The Commissioner does
not defend the justice of this result, but says the law requires it.”
The story involves a grandmother, a son and daughter-in-law
and two grandkids. Grandma appears to be the only one working and that as a
nursing assistant in Texas. She also collected social security, which was just
enough to keep the household afloat.
[]’s job is
hard, and it does not pay much.”
It was 2012. He son did not work. Her daughter-n-law…
… stayed home
and took care of the babies.”
She filed her 2012 tax return and claimed the two
grandchildren as dependents. That made sense, as she was the only person there
with a job.
This allowed her to claim head of household and the
dependent exemptions. Much more important than that, however, it allowed her to
claim the child and earned income credits. She got a refund of almost $5,300,
almost half of which was those credits.
Good for grandma.
The IRS sent her a notice. They wanted the money from the
credits back.
Being the warm, fuzzy IRS we have come to know, she was also
assessed a $1,000 penalty.
She figured ID theft. Somebody else must have claimed the
kids.
She was right, partially. Somebody else did claim the kids.
Their parents.
That would be her son, the one who …
… did not work, and he was into dealing with drugs.”
Sigh.
We all know what a child is, but in the tax Code must rise
to the level of a “qualifying child” before the tax goodies flow. There are
requirements, of course – such as age and where they live – and grandma easily
met those.
But only one person can claim each qualifying child, which
is why one is required to include dependent social security numbers on the
return. The IRS tracks those numbers. If you are the second person to use a
dependent’s number, the IRS will bounce (or at least hold up) your return.
Grandma was the second to file, so she got bounced.
Now, there are families where more than one person can say
that a child was his/her qualifying child. Congress anticipated this and
included tie-breaker rules. For example, if two people contest and have equal
claim, then the tie-breaker goes to the person with more income.
Or if the parents and someone else claim, then the parents
win the tie-breaker.
However, this can be sidestepped if the parents DO NOT claim
the child.
In grandma’s case, her son and daughter-in-law filed and
claimed.
Can this situation be saved?
You bet.
How?
Amend the return. Have the parents “unclaim” the kids.
To their credit, the son and daughter did amend. They handed
the amended return to the IRS attorney.
And here we have the technicality that makes you cringe.
Filing a return means sending it on to a service center or
handing it to “any person assigned the responsibility to receive hand-carried
returns in the local Internal Revenue Service office.”
Problem: the IRS attorney is not “assigned the
responsibility” to receive or handle returns. Handing him/her a return is the
equivalent of giving your return to a convenience store clerk or a Starbucks
barista.
I suppose the attorney could bail you out by filing the
return on your behalf upon returning to the office, but that did not happen
here.
The return was never filed. Without an amended return, the
son and daughter never revoked their dependency claim.
As the parents, they took priority over grandma, who only
supported everyone that year.
And grandma could not claim the kids a second time.
Which cost her the child and earned income credits.
She had to repay the IRS.
The Court did not like this, not even a little bit.
We are sympathetic to []’s position. She provided all the financial support for …, had been told by her son that she should claim the children as her dependents, and is now stuck with a hefty tax bill. It is difficult for us to explain to a hardworking taxpayer like [] why this should be so, except to say that we are bound by the law.”
Sad.
At least the Court reversed those blasted penalties.
