Baker v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
91 T.C.M. 949 (2006)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Daniel Baker (plaintiff) and Deanna Wus had two children, A and C. In 2002 Baker and Wus stopped living together. Baker and Wus did not have a custody agreement concerning their four-year-old daughter, A. In 2003 Wus received public benefits in Delaware and was listed as A’s custodial parent for purposes of the state. Baker did not apply for any type of public assistance for A. Baker and Wus both received babysitting help from Rosemary Srase, a family friend. Srase babysat the children at her home until Baker moved into a house owned by his mother. After Baker’s move, Srase began babysitting the children at the house owned by Baker’s mother. Instead of paying Srase cash for babysitting, Baker paid for her help by performing work around her house. A daycare also cared for the children during 2003. Wus usually took the children to the daycare facility, and Baker picked the children up. On his income-tax return for 2003, Baker claimed an earned income tax credit under § 32(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code for caring for A. Baker, Baker’s mother, and Srase testified that A lived with Baker from January 2003 to November 2003, when A went to live with Wus. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) disallowed the earned income tax credit. Baker petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chiechi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
