## Facts

- Heretick and his ex-wife shared one adult daughter, Maggie Elizabeth Heretick (Maggie).
- During college, Maggie attended the University of Richmond, lived in dormitories, and alternated staying with her parents during summer breaks.
- In May 1999, Maggie graduated and took a research position at the Medical College of Virginia.
- After graduation, Maggie began renting an apartment in Richmond.
- Maggie visited both parents from time to time after moving to her apartment.
- Heretick and his ex-wife each maintained a bedroom for Maggie in their separate homes; Maggie kept clothing and some personal items at each home.
- Maggie did not move in with either parent after graduation.
- For the 1999 tax year, Heretick claimed head-of-household filing status.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue challenged Heretick’s head-of-household designation for 1999.

## Issues

1. For 1999, did Maggie have the same principal place of abode as Heretick for more than half the year so that Heretick qualified to file as head of household?

## Decision

- The Tax Court held that Heretick did not qualify to file as head of household for 1999.
- The court concluded that Maggie’s living arrangements in 1999—particularly her post-graduation rental of her own Richmond apartment and only periodic visits to her parents—did not satisfy the requirement that she share Heretick’s home as her principal place of abode for more than half the year.
- Accordingly, the court sustained the Commissioner’s determination denying head-of-household status for 1999.

## Legal Principles

- Head-of-household status requires the taxpayer to (1) be unmarried (or treated as unmarried) at year end and (2) maintain as his home a household that is the principal place of abode of a qualifying person for more than half the taxable year. (I.R.C. § 2(b).)
- A child can be a qualifying person for head-of-household purposes only if the statutory residency requirement is met; keeping a room available for an adult child, without the child actually living there as a principal home for the required period, is not enough.
- A person’s principal place of abode is determined from where the person actually lives; periodic visits to a parent’s home generally do not establish that the parent’s home is the visitor’s principal place of abode.
- In Tax Court deficiency cases, the taxpayer generally bears the burden of proving entitlement to a claimed filing status and the facts necessary to meet the statutory requirements.
- As a Tax Court Summary Opinion issued in a small tax case, the decision is not precedential and is generally not reviewable on appeal under I.R.C. § 7463.

## Conclusion

Heretick v. Commissioner addressed whether a divorced taxpayer could claim head-of-household status in 1999 based on an adult daughter who, after graduating college, rented her own apartment and only visited her parents intermittently. The Tax Court ruled that these facts did not show the daughter’s principal place of abode was with Heretick for more than half the year, so the Commissioner’s denial of head-of-household filing status for 1999 was upheld.


Heretick v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2003-129 (2003)