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!