Tax Question for RedZCar

>>>Which of the children is the 2nd man able to claim on his 2007 tax return as a dependent and why?<<<

Since the children did not live with a family member in 2007, all the information about the mother is irrelevant. What is important are the old dependency rules (now called qualifying relative). Since you haven't explained who supports the children, we can't answer your question.

I felt that I gave sufficient information. I see that by not including the income for the man they are living with prevented a complete answer. Here is the additional information. If you need more let me know.

The only money coming into the household (other than the $3,000 the one son earned) is $50,000 that the man they are living with earned. This is all earned income. No interest / dividends / business income / etc. The 2 children do not have any income other than the $3,000 the older son earned at a part time job.

I was hoping Red Czar would answer it because most professionals that I have discussed this with do not come up with the correct answer. He is so confident that being a CPA makes him know all answers I just wanted to see if he knows the correct answer to this one.

Dusty

>>including the income for the man<<

Many tax preparers would consider this if there were no better information. But it is only indirect evidence that does not actually address the central question of support, i.e., how that money is spent.

Clothing, medical care, schooling, and many other things might be counted as support without any "money coming into the household." Who provides the housing? That's one of the biggest elements, and may not involve any money at all.

There are also non-financial tests for a dependent, such as citizenship and whether the relationship violates law. You still haven't given us nearly enough information to answer your question.
**********

I should not have stated, in my first post, that the children don't live with a family member. Now that you have explained this is a trick question, we can see that you are relying on the interpretation that the teenagers are qualifying children of each other (and therefore can't be qualifying relatives).

Congress drafted and then rejected a clarification on that point, so it remains in dispute since clearly a dependent can not have a dependent, yet the code defines qualifying child in terms of dependency. As you have discovered, a great many tax professionals do not agree with your interpretation.