In article <gncu7d$b2o$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

These days, with cellphones, VOIP and the like, that's a lot less
meaningful than it used to be.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mike Wellman <irsfixer[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

WoW! Keep working on it.

One idea is to get one innocent spouse relief and have the other
file bankruptcy.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 19, 9:08�am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

I certainly think it is possible but then again one of my goals in
life is to get two spouses innocent spouse relief for the same tax
liability. Just looking for the right fatcs.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Incomplete facts and circumstances is the norm in this newsgroup.
The OP came looking for direction and opinion. Fleming & SCA
is the direction in which to look. While the opinions vary
between it is possible and it is not possible upon the narrow
circumstances given.

I am on the "it is possible" side, but then my view is to aid
the taxpayer in finding an optimal tax position while highlighting
the gray areas. The situation as described may very well catch
an audit. If so, it will almost certainly get resolved without
going to court.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

It doesn't say more than 50% of the living area of any home. It says
more than 50% of "the principal place of abode" of a qualifying child.
If that "abode" includes the child's bedroom, for example, and not
someone else's, that could easily tally up to being more than 50%.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

I would tend to agree with you. Just sharing living quarters is not
enough to say there can be just one "household." However sharing
expenses for food would, to me, tend to indicate one household instead
of two.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"None" <geobrown37[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1aca68d7-1733-44c2-bf32-f08d6e2e6bc5[at]e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

IRC 2. "more than 50%" => "There can be only one."
(NO, let's not crosspost that to alt.tv.highlander!)

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Alan" <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J6Mml.12682$W06.8930[at]flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
- quote -

Very narrow facts and circumstances. The situation described here I don't
believe is sufficient. Regardless, should there be two households there, I
would expect it to be challenged - and as both heads are related, this
could easily end up before the courts.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gncu7d$b2o$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

I'm with Dick on this one. I see this some, not as much as I used to, but
still a couple times a year. In the absence of a conjugal bed I have no
problem with multiple HOH's under a single roof.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Feb 17, 10:00*pm, "D. Stussy" <s...[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Site, please.

George Brown

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

I agree, sharing living areas has little if anything to do with
determining if there are separate households in the same house.

What I think is more relevant is whether they "live" together in other
ways. For example OP indicated that they share food and food expenses.
To me that strongly indicates one household rather than two.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

An IRS auditor might take that as an initial position. But it's a
facts and circumstances situation. Someone else cited the major
case which had a common living area.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

are two households. So sayeth the Tax Court in the Fleming Case &
The SCA I referenced. There are not enough facts presented in the
OP to draw any conclusions.

I advise all to read the Fleming Case & the SCA.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"taxman99" <alflara[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0851aa9-bce9-4313-bfaf-27d6f16f4334[at]y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

NO. I do not see the living areas as separable. Any sharing of the living
area disqualifies multiple HoHs.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

taxman99 <alflara[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

This has been discussed a few times over the years. My position was
and still is that, in the absence oof a conjugal bed, it is possible
to have two HoH's in the same house even without the house being
divided.

One issue the IRS will look at is telephone service, i.e., separate
or shared. Otherwise INRHO this scenario is marginal, but not
unreasonable.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

taxman99 wrote:
- quote -

established that it is possible in The Estate of Fleming vs
Comm'r, TC Memo 1974-137 and an SCA in 1998 reiterated that. The
SCA also summarizes the Fleming case.
It makes for interesting reading.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-sca/1998-041.pdf

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Even though I've been doing taxes full time for over 20 years I still
have doubts some times on the simplest things. Its not that I don't do
my homework. I know shame on me but I need to ask any way.

Let's assume a 50 year old widow lives in a house with her 14 year
old niece. The widow's income is $40,000 per year. The widow
claims head of household. The widow pays for all the clothing,
school and personal expenses of her niece.

The widow has a daughter Karen that also lives with her. Karen earns
$32,000 a year and takes care of her daugher. (The widow's
granddaughter). Karen pays her mother a monthly rent and pays for
the cable TV, water bill and 1/2 of the electric and gas bill.
Food expenses are some times split but many times they will just take
turns purchasing the food. Karen pays for all the clothing, personal
and schools supplies expenses of her daughter. The house is not
divided, that is they share the house equally except for the bedrooms.

This situation is not that uncommon. Can both the widow and the
daughter (Karen) claim head of household?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >