In article <gDiZj.381$v94.63[at]newsfe14.lga> ,
Elle <honda.lioness[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:
- quote -


Yes, you (and Pub 678 and everything else) are correct. This notice
gets her the dependency allowance but not HoH.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Arthur Kamlet" <kamlet[at]panix.com> wrote
- quote -

Pub 678, page 2-4, indicates that Alice would not qualify
for HoH based on supporting her twin 6-yr old cousins. Do
you believe otherwise because of Notice 2008-5? (Alice could
take the cousins as dependents, though.)

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

prucker wrote:
- quote -

But somewhere it seems that this has happened before, and IRS did allow
the change, at least for the one half of the couple.

So if there were no tax liability especially, and even if there were,
provided all the tax is paid and no balance due, it's worth a shot.
But explanations should accompany all four tax returns.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

p.s. check your mail boxes, Dick.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <5b4cbefa-2de8-41df-8bbe-f2c064f99ddb[at]p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> ,
Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

There might be a hint as to the IRS thinking from Notice 2008-05
which dealt with a qualifying relative who could not be a
qualifying child of "any other taxpayer."

That notice answered the Cousin Alice and the twins dilemma.

(Cousin Alice took care of her twin 6-yr old cousins all year, and
would otherwise qualify for dependency allowance and HoH based on
them, unless S 152 meant that each twin was a qualifying child of
the other.

If each twin is "any other taxpayer" under S152, then Cousin Alice
is not allowed to apply the qualifying relative tests, and loses
out.)


Notice 2008-05 said Any Other Taxapyer is NOT anyone who a) does
not have to file, and b) files only to get a refund of federal
witholding. One example in that notice is someone who doesn't
have to file, but does file and gets EIC. Such a person IS any
other taxpayer.


Your question also deals with S 152 and since filing results in
a Stimulus rebate, not "Only to receive federal tax witheld"
it is a hint that it will not fly here either.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On May 22, 10:38*am, prucker <pjr...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

In general, if the students in question would have had zero tax
liablity and would have received refunds of 100% of their withholdings
by filing married-separate and taking no personal exemption, then
their respective parents can still claim the dependency exemptions.

I have no idea what, if anything, the existence of the advanced
stimulus payment does to the general rule.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Two college students were married Dec., 2007. They were both supported
by
their parents for 2007. They filed a joint tax return on their summer
jobs.
Their parents are filing their own tax returns now with extensions and
have
learned that their children filed the joint return. Is there any way
to
amend the children's tax return to MFS for 2007 in this situation even
though we're past April 15.

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Sorry, but as you seem to realize, it is too late to amend from
MFJ to MFS.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >