D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

I thought about that, too, particularly since Alabama and
Georgia are common law states.

So then, question for client: is a refundable tax credit of
maybe...4,300$ actually WORTH holding yourself out as being
married? Remember; you'll have to get a formal divorce if
push comes to shove in the future.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

enduranceal wrote:

- quote -

The only thing I can think of is: Do they live in a
"common-law" marriage state? If so, it may be possible for
him to end up with EIC..... If no CLM, then I agree with
the others - no EIC.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"enduranceal" <taxman99[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

No.

- quote -

It's called "family values."

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

enduranceal wrote:

- quote -

I believe so. The definition of foster child used to cover
his situation, but doesn't anymore.

- quote -

That's true in general, though. Fortunately for John, he
could correct the situation; not everyone has that option
available to them.

Phoebe

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"enduranceal" <taxman99[at]aol.com> wrote

- quote -

Nope. Those children are not qualifying children for
purposes of the EIC.

- quote -

Laws aren't always fair to everyone.

- quote -

There are lots of deductions, exemptions, exceptions and
credits that have very strict limitations. This is just one
of them.

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Your interpretation of the rules is correct.

You have come across the differences in the definition of
"foster child" For dependency or HoH purposes the foster
child must live with you for the entire year, be under your
care, and treated as your own child. For EIC purposes, a
foster child need only live with you for six months, but
must have been placed under your care by an agency.
Assuming that the relationship with the children has never
been formalized, he does not have a qualifying person for
EIC.

- quote -

In contrast, in the case where both adults work, a married
couple often gets no EIC at all because their joint income
is over the limit.

Don't dwell on the definitions of "child" ... they have
already been changed for the 2005 tax year.

--
Don EA in Upstate NY

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

John has been living with Mary and Mary's two children for
the past five years. John and Mary are not married and John
is the only wage earner in this family. John is not the
father of Mary's children. John will be filing head of
household with Mary and the two children as dependents.

Is John automatically excluded for the earned income credit
because he is not married to Mary? I've read Pub. 596 and
to claim the earned income credit John must have a
qualifying child. A qualifying child must have a
relationship to John but these children, although John takes
care of as his own, have no legal or blood relationship to
John. (relationship test)

Am I missing something here? It really doesn't sound fair
to me. It appears that John is a second class taxpayer
because he isn't married.

Am I looking at this wrong or can someone shed some light on
this problem.

Thanks in advance.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->