Head of Household??

What is the name of your state? CT

I started a new 2nd job the other day and when looking at my W-4 I noticed the Head of Household part. I was wondering when I read on about whether I could file as head of household, but after reading the description, I'm confused.

It says, "generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax returns only if you are unmarried and pay moer than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals."

Would a live -in girlfriend be a qualified individual? We rent, and I basically pay all the bills so that she can concentrate on using her money (she only works part time) to pay her college loans as quickly as possible.

How does this work? Thanks

2talll said:

What is the name of your state? CT

I started a new 2nd job the other day and when looking at my W-4 I noticed the Head of Household part. I was wondering when I read on about whether I could file as head of household, but after reading the description, I'm confused.

It says, "generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax returns only if you are unmarried and pay moer than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals."


Would a live -in girlfriend be a qualified individual? We rent, and I basically pay all the bills so that she can concentrate on using her money (she only works part time) to pay her college loans as quickly as possible.

How does this work? Thanks

Click to expand...

Read through the head of household section in the following publication, and then qualifying relative section.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p501/ar02.html#d0e2117

You may be able to claim your live-in girlfriend as a dependent, but you cannot file head of household. That requires a blood relative.

abezon said:

You may be able to claim your live-in girlfriend as a dependent, but you cannot file head of household. That requires a blood relative.

Click to expand...

I thought as you do, but then I went and reviewed the publication that I cited, and it seems to imply differently....which is why I suggested he read the pub. It seems to imply that if someone meets the definition of qualifying relative, (which does not have to be a blood relative) then they qualify as your qualifying person for head of household status.

I am going to be doing research of some of these items prior to the next tax season, because some of the pubs seem to have slight changes in wording that make our firm's previous opinions open for possible change.

The tax code allows HH filing status if the taxpayer can claim any dependent under sec. 151 [26 USC 2(b)(1)(A)(ii)], BUT, then says:
(3) Limitations
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for purposes of this subtitle a taxpayer shall not be considered to be a head of a household—
(A) if at any time during the taxable year he is a nonresident alien; or
(B) by reason of an individual who would not be a dependent for the taxable year but for—
(i) subparagraph (H) of section 152 (d)(2), or
(ii) paragraph (3) of section 152 (d).

152 (d)(2)(H) is the section that says you can claim someone who lived in your house all year if the other QR tests are met. I think the IRS pub was just sloppily written; the statute is pretty clear.

The girlfriend is NOT a qualifying relative for head-of-household classification. Nor would any child that the girlfriend might have that could be claimed by the girlfriend.

check out this publication : http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf

refer to the chart on page 7. - notice the footnote 7 at the bottom of the chart.

Ginny J said:

The girlfriend is NOT a qualifying relative for head-of-household classification. Nor would any child that the girlfriend might have that could be claimed by the girlfriend.

check out this publication : http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf

refer to the chart on page 7. - notice the footnote 7 at the bottom of the chart.

Click to expand...

Its crystal clear that any child that the girlfriend might have would not qualify as his dependent or as a head of household qualifying person.

However, the pub I cited threw me a little...but I will take Abezon's word for it that the code is clear....although, LOL, on of my tax law professors (when I was working on my masters) said that the tax code was written by morons...and was as clear as mud...

LdiJ said:

However, the pub I cited threw me a little...but I will take Abezon's word for it that the code is clear....although, LOL, on of my tax law professors (when I was working on my masters) said that the tax code was written by morons...and was as clear as mud...

Click to expand...

Hey, I never said the code was clear! It's just not really open to interpretation on this particular issue. I remember one of *my* professors telling us never to say that something was "clear." She was a judge & said that asserting something was 'clear' was a red flag to her because it meant the attorney was either being redundant or trying to bolster a weak argument by saying something is clear.

This is one of the items that I particularly emphasize in my tax classes. I have the students highlight and booktab this page of Publication 501 because we have soooooo many people who try this one.

I would stake my job on this one.

Ginny J said:

This is one of the items that I particularly emphasize in my tax classes. I have the students highlight and booktab this page of Publication 501 because we have soooooo many people who try this one.

I would stake my job on this one.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons why so many people try it is because it used to be valid. The changes that went into effect for the 2005 season put an end to it. However, those changes added more confusion....which has been coming up over and over again at the IRS seminars. Therefore I expect the IRS to do more to clarify those items, which is why I pay particular attention when I am concerned that something is contradicting our previous assumptions.

For a while there our firm believed that someone could not claim head of household if they did not have a qualifying CHILD. Then that changed to a qualifying blood relative...and then the cite that I posted earlier made me wonder if any "qualifying relative" would apply, since it seems to imply that.

However, I am going to go with Abezon's interpretation of the code...unless any future case law goes against that.

One person in our firm is consistant in insisting that someone can still claim a boyfriend or girlfriend's child. Their argument (and this is someone with 20 years experience) is that a child cannot be their parent's qualifying child if their parent is not providing ANY of the child's support. While the rest of the firm disagrees (including me), and he acquieses to that...I can't help but see the legal logic in that argument.

The 2005 changes were intended to make things clearer, but instead they caused more confusion in my opinion.

While there is certainly political logic in your co-worker's position, there is no legal logic to it. The qualifying relative tests include 'not a qualifying child of another taxpayer.' The tax code defines taxpayer as anyone subject to any internal revenue tax, including income, estate, or excise taxes. IRC 7701. Thus, anyone who has a buys a pack of cigarettes or has cable TV has paid excise taxes and is a 'taxpayer' for purposes of sec. 152.

Personally, I agree with your colleague that this produces a ridiculous result, but the law is full of ridiculous results.....

A definite change to the tax laws in 2005 was they took that little part about the relationship NOT violating local laws out of claiming the girlfriend/boyfiend. that was always fun when I have to do multiple year returns.

Here in Florida and up in Michigan, it violates state laws to shack up - so, they certainly weren't getting to claim girlfriends and boyfriends on my watch. Couldn't necessarily check the returns of every preparer, but for d*** sure, I know that I told them the right things.

I had many boyfriends hating me when I told them they were NOT HOH because of their live-in GF and the fact that he was supporting her kids. I know that page of pub 501 like the back of my hand ...

Ginny J said:

A definite change to the tax laws in 2005 was they took that little part about the relationship NOT violating local laws out of claiming the girlfriend/boyfiend.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Ginny, but that statement is incorrect. The 'not in violation of local law' requirement is definitely still in the statute. See IRC 152(f)(3). The IRS has just stopped mentioning it.

The reason the IRS stopped sticking the 'not in violation of local law' language in its Pubs is because in June 2003, the Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws that made it illegal for consenting adults to have sex. The court's language was broad, and applies to both hetero- & homosexual activities. The constitution trumps the tax code & state & local laws. Therefore, laws making it illegal to shack up are not constitutional & were/are void. Thus, the IRS cannot deny a dependency exemption due to an unenforceable local law that purports to make the relationship illegal. Other types of illegal relationships (incest, kidnapping) will still bar a taxpayer from claiming a dependent. Gave me a wonderful opportunity to work a little civics lesson into my tax class that fall......

I mention this only because you might want to see if any of your old clients could amend their 2004 returns if that was the only thing that prevented them from claiming a dependent. Also, if you're filing back returns, this would certainly apply to tax years after 2002.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, & the opinion can be read here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

The tax code: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000152----000-.html