[net.taxes] Child Born on 1 January

tompkins@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Tompkins) (10/30/84)

An old age exemption is available if you reach the age of 65 by year end.
Reg 1.151-1(c)2 states that you reach the age of 65 on the beginning of
the day prior to your 65th birthday---if you are born on January 1, you
get this deduction the year before because you officially became 65
at 12:01 AM on December 31.  In my quick search, I see no similar reference
to the birth of a dependent child, but if you have a child born on 1/1,
it is probably worth looking at the Reg, or just taking the deduction:
the comparison to the old age deduction is sufficient that I doubt they
can do any more than charge you the money and interest---you made an
honest mistake rather than purgered yourself on your return.

jhh@ihldt.UUCP (John Haller) (11/01/84)

An interesting item I heard from my office-mate who is expecting near
the first of the year, is that the deduction is for when the baby
is due, not when the baby is actually born.  She has not checked
this out fully, however. I suspect that if this is the case,
most babies born in the first part of January are late according
to the doctors estimate for tax purposes.

If anyone knows of any authoratative references of truth or falsehood
of this statement, please let me know, and I will pass it on to
my roommate.

John Haller ihnp4!ihldt!jhh

essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (11/02/84)

<>
As the father of two children who were due the last week of
December but born the first week of January, I can say with
authority (and regret) that it is the actual birth date, not
the due date, that counts as far as the IRS is concerned.
-- 
				Ed Sachs
				AT&T Bell Laboratories
				Naperville, IL
				ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs

drr@ihopa.UUCP (D. R. Rueckheim) (11/03/84)

I have seen a lot of articles about whether it is allowable
to deduct a child that is born after Jan. 1 on the preceeding
year's federal income tax. I can only assume that the child
in question was born before the return was filed, by April 15,
at the latest. Well to me the answer is a very simple YES.
Now I suppose you wonder how I came to that simple answer. 
That is also very easy to answer, I can read (why is the
keyboard getting hot?). For those of you that haven't caught
on yet try looking at line 6c on the federal income tax form 
1040. Well if you don't have one handy here it is:
    6c First names of your dependent children who lived with you
To me that requires that the child have a name before you file.
As for the only other remaining requirement, "who lived with
you", well before birth the child (with only a few exceptions
that I know of) lived inside the mother. Now, if the mother is
the person who is filing the return, either single or joint,
then the child living inside of the mother did live with her.
Also, is not the child that is living inside of a woman
dependent on the woman? 
Well, tell me if my logic is all screwed up, I love mail. 
-- 
        D. R. Rueckheim
	..!ihnp4!ihopa!drr
	AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.

essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (11/05/84)

<>
> ... well before birth the child (with only a few exceptions
> that I know of) lived inside the mother. Now, if the mother is
> the person who is filing the return, either single or joint,
> then the child living inside of the mother did live with her.
> Also, is not the child that is living inside of a woman
> dependent on the woman? 
> Well, tell me if my logic is all screwed up, I love mail. 
>         D. R. Rueckheim

Since when does the IRS believe in logic?
-- 
				Ed Sachs
				AT&T Bell Laboratories
				Naperville, IL
				ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs

gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (11/05/84)

It seems pretty clear to me that a child born on 1 January, regardless of
when due, is not an exemption for the previous year.  For example, page 19
of the infamous Publication 17 (for 1983 returns) discusses "death or
birth" under dependency tests, and says " the same is true [i.e. the
child meete the "member of your household" test] if a child was born
during the year and was a member of your household for the rest of the year,
except for any required hospital stay following birth."

The biggest break they describe, then, is a child born on December 30 who
goes home on January 2, and is a dependant in both years, even though it
did not physically enter your house the first year.

Can the discussion end now?  Please?

FROM:   Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems
USENET: {ucbvax, ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon 
        {resonex, qubix, hplabs}!cae780!gordon 
USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA  94089
AT&T:   (408)745-1440

hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (11/07/84)

The argument that the "child" inside the mother can be considered
a dependent for tax purposes should appeal to the anti-abortion
crowd, since they want to give it full rights of a citizen!