My son is in college now. And he's worked a few job's my question is can I still
Claim him. Since he has to file now to. He's in Texas. But I still pay most of his bill's
Not clear on what IRS is saying about this. OH I live in MS.

How many months out of the year does he live with you? If he is on his own most of the time. I would say no, you can't claim him.

MafiaAngel180 is wrong.

There is an exception for college students: They are considered to be living with you (regardless of where they are actually located) AND the amount of income they earn is irrelevent as long as they are under the age of 25 on 31 December 2007.

Claim him. Just make sure that he knows that you are claiming him so that he does not claim himself on his tax return.

Remember that he has the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT to claim his own personal exemption, so you NEED his cooperation in this matter.

MafiaAngel180 is wrong.

There is an exception for college students: They are considered to be living with you (regardless of where they are actually located) AND the amount of income they earn is irrelevent as long as they are under the age of 25 on 31 December 2007.

Go ahead and claim him. Just make sure that he knows that you are claiming him so that he does not claim himself on his tax return.

Remember that he has the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT to claim his own personal exemption, so you NEED his cooperation in this matter.

Wow, that's crappy for him. What if he has a full time job and doesn't want claimed? Does that get taken into consideration?

MafiaAngel:

Read the LAST sentence of my post, which said: "Remember that he has the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT to claim his own personal exemption, so you NEED his cooperation in this matter."

What most parents do is that they coordinate with their college-aged child, determine what his refund would have been had he claimed his own exemption, then write him a check for the difference.

Most college kids are, at most, in the 15% marginal tax bracket, while the parents are in AT LEAST the 25% bracket and probably 28% or 33%. That $3,400 personal exemption is worth a LOT more to the parents than it is to the kid.

What is his age? Is he a full time student? How much did he earn in 2007? Did you provide him more than half of his support?

You can claim your son or not will depend upon the answers to the above questions. You can claim someone as dependent under Qualifying Child or Qualifying Relative.

Also if your can claim your son as dependent, then your son can't claim his own exemption even if you don't claim it. That means your son can claim his own exemption only if he does not qualify to be your dependent.
Your son does not have IRREVOCABLE right to claim his own exemption.

Yes, you can claim him since he is a full-time student.

Most college kids are, at most, in the 15% marginal tax bracket, while the parents are in AT LEAST the 25% bracket and probably 28% or 33%. That $3,400 personal exemption is worth a LOT more to the parents than it is to the kid.Exactly right. And that's the whole point.

MukatA is correct. If the tests are met, then the parent may claim the exemption. It is not up to the child to decide otherwise.

TTE:

Okay, maybe "IRREVOCABLE RIGHT" is NOT the proper terminology. The IRS regulations state that a child is NOT entitled to his own exemption if the parents ARE entitled to claim him. That is the theory!

However, when it comes to REALITY, it has been my experience that the IRS will NOT side with the parents about who gets to claim the child's own exemption, even if they can show that they provided more than half of the child's support. The reason is that, in such cases, proving the support is VERY DIFFICULT if the child disputes the facts of the case. This is especially true for college students if the student is paying for the tuition or is on scholarship.

I actually had a case like this about 13 years ago when the child, a senior at Georgia Tech, claimed herself while her parents also claimed her. I prepared the parent's return and tried to negotiate an amicable solution between both parties. The young lady, who was on scholarship, got stubborn about it, however, (wanted to prove a point that she was independent, I suppose) and disputed the fact that her parents were giving her cash every month for her to make ends meet. When everything was factored in, it was very close as to whether the parents met the 50% rule. The monthly cash was the DECIDING fator, and the father could not PROVE that he provided the cash (after all, who asks their daughter for a receipt? ).

That is when I got the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT citation from the IRS agent when she decided in the daughter's favor. Needless to say, I lost the parents as clients for succeeding years, so I do not know if this incident soured their future relationship, though I suspect that it did!

Fortunately, that has been the ONLY time I could not broker an agreement between the parents and child. Most college kids recognize that they would STARVE without their parent's help, and giving up a personal exemption seems to be a small price to pay, especially if they get a bribe from Mom and Dad for the exemption!

ATE -- this should not be all that hard to resolve. Scholarships do not count in the calculation of support. Hence, if the child doesn't have any other income, it's kind of hard for them to demonstrate that they provided their own support.

In any event, as a practitioner you can only recommend a client follow the law. The law provides clearly that the person who qualifies is the one who may claim the exemption. There is no elective provision here.

The scholarship was NOT factored into the support calculation; she had other income (she had a part-time job).

She just disputed that she received the money from her dad, and the father could not prove otherwise.

Like I said, I represented the FATHER in this case, and LOST.

Theory is fine, but real-life applications and consequences of action HAS to be considered when we advise our clients.

The scholarship was NOT factored into the support calculation; she had other income (she had a part-time job).

She just disputed that she received the money from her dad, and the father could not prove otherwise.

Like I said, I represented the FATHER in this case, and LOST.

Theory is fine, but real-life applications and consequences of action HAS to be considered when we advise our clients.


Well, I disagree vehemently with you on that. It's not a THEORY, it's the law. Whether a person finds it hard to prove something is not the issue. He could have used cancelled checks, credit card statements etc.

Re scholarships, your earlier post suggested directly that it was an issue when scholarships are involved. I was only pointing out that this is not the case.

Granted, it IS the law.

Unfortunately, the IRS is staffed by human beings, and humans, being imperfect, often err. In my case, I believe they erred mightily when they sided with the daughter.