Greetings!

Question

3

This started with someone who wanted to take the position that "Uncle Sam" (the U.S. government) received more support from a taxpayer than the taxpayer's child did, and therefore should be claimed as a dependent. This is clearly incorrect, because the U.S. goverment ("Uncle Sam") is too old to be a "qualifying child" (unless disabled), has too much gross income to be a "qualifying relative", and also cannot be claimed as a "qualifying relative" because no one person provides more than 1/2 of its support. However, a small town could be less than 19 years old or its municipal government could both have less than $3650 in income and receive more than 1/2 of its support from one person. I did find a sentence in the instructions for the 1040 that implies that a dependent who is not a relative must be a "person". This would seem to imply a human, but corporations are "legal persons", and the Supreme Court recently ruled that they have the First Amendment rights of other persons. I would rather not give an answer that will led to silly demands to claim corporations as dependents.

What is a simply, legally valid, response to give that will prove to anyone that only a human can be claimed as a dependent?

edited Feb 4 at 19:24

TaxQueries♦♦
568●3●11

asked Feb 4 at 19:14

stephenweinstein
828●8

PStampley · Accepted Answer · 2010-02-04 20:05:12Z UTC

Here is the Internal Revenue Code Section:

§ 152 Dependent defined.

  152(a)In general.
  For purposes of this subtitle, the term “dependent” means—

        152(a)(1) a qualifying child, or 

        152(a)(2) a qualifying relative.

Relationship. For purposes of paragraph (1)(A) , an individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in this paragraph if the individual is any of the following with respect to the taxpayer:

  152(d)(2)(A) A child or a descendant of a child. 

  152(d)(2)(B) A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister. 

  152(d)(2)(C) The father or mother, or an ancestor of either. 

  152(d)(2)(D) A stepfather or stepmother. 

  152(d)(2)(E) A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the taxpayer. 

  152(d)(2)(F) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the taxpayer. 

  152(d)(2)(G) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law. 

  152(d)(2)(H) An individual (other than an individual who at any time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined without regard to section 7703 , of the taxpayer) who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household.

It probably would be better to ignore the comments & refuse to do the tax return. I find that logic & law rarely matter in this type of discussion

EAgent · Answer 2 · 2010-02-08 19:44:08Z UTC

Your best response is to show the client the door, literally.

Entertaining such arguments will only result in more such arguments. The people who raise these arguments are TAX PROTESTERS and are either on the IRS radar or soon will be.

Do you want YOUR NAME and reputation linked to these people? I am 100% serious with this question. If YOU put any such dependent on a return it will be YOUR A** in the ringer.

I get a few of these nut jobs annually and I simply tell them this "you came here because you needed expert help. I'm the expert. These arguments will NOT fly and I will NOT be a party to them. If you want to buy me dinner and drinks and have a friendly conversation about such things I'm happy to do it AFTER 04/15 and I get to pick the restaurant and YOU get to pay. Shall we proceed with your return?"

As soon as I recognize that the person I'm talking to is a tax protester or a potential tax protester I make them aware that I charge an hourly fee of $250 PLUS my regular rate for tax preparation to discuss such topics. That usually shuts them down. If they decide to continue on and use me I will typically double their fee and I always insisted on payment in full before I release the returns.

SandySea · Answer 3 · 2010-02-09 19:56:47Z UTC

1

FRIVOLOUS TAX RETURNS are serious and certainly this would be frivilous. I would not jeopardize my reputation and sanctions from IRS by even entertaining the client for one second. :)

answered Feb 9 at 19:56

SandySea
2,715●1●10

Tom · Answer 4 · 2010-02-11 02:15:38Z UTC

1

You may also want to read the IRS' The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=219104,00.html

answered Feb 11 at 2:15

Tom
690●8

bob darden · Answer 5 · 2010-02-16 00:19:11Z UTC

1

One way to slow down the "non-human" dependants is to remind the crazy people that all dependants have to have a valid social security number.

answered Feb 16 at 0:19

bob darden
71●1

Jan Dillaha · Answer 6 · 2010-03-06 14:30:59Z UTC

0

I am with Bob. I sarcastically say 1) When you get the social security number I will discuss it with you. 2) If claiming those dependents were possible they would already be on my tax return.

No one has ever asked me that twice.

answered Mar 6 at 14:30

Jan Dillaha
41●2

How should I respond to morons and smart alecks who want to claim non-human dependents, such as the government?

6 Answers