Internal Revenue Service
Revenue Ruling

TaxLinks.com   sm

 Rev. Rul. 67-61

1967-1 C.B. 27

Sec. 151

Sec. 152

IRS Headnote

A taxpayer whose mother is confined in a mental institution under an agreement in which the taxpayer promised to pay a specified amount per year for her support, and to pay the remainder of her support if and when it is possible for him to do so, will not be considered to have supplied the unpaid remainder of her support.

Revenue Ruling 58-404, C.B. 1958-2, 56, clarified.

Full Text

Rev. Rul. 67-61

Advice has been requested whether a taxpayer will be considered to have supplied his mother's support for 1965, where she is confined in a mental institution under an agreement in which the taxpayer promised to pay 6 x dollars per year to the institution for her support, and to pay the remainder of her support (10 x dollars per year) if and when it is possible for him to do so. Taxpayer paid 6 x dollars toward his mother's support in 1965. The remainder of her support for the year (10 x dollars) was supplied by the institution.

Where the taxpayer has neither furnished in kind nor paid for the support received during the calendar year by the individual he claims as a dependent, the following requirements must be met in order for him to be considered as having provided support: (1) The taxpayer must take affirmative steps to provide support for an individual he claims as his dependent; and (2) incur an unconditional obligation to pay for the items of support. John L. Donner , 25 T.C. 1043 (1956), illustrates the principle that section 152(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 requires something more than a taxpayer's unfulfilled duty or obligation to pay items of support in order to have them considered received from him.

A promise to pay for support, if and when it is possible to do so, is not an unconditional obligation for payment. Accordingly, a taxpayer, whose mother is confined in a mental institution under an agreement which requires the taxpayer to pay 6 x dollars per year toward her support, and in which he promises to pay the remainder of her support (10 x dollars per year) if and when it is possible for him to do so, will not be considered to have supplied the remaining 10 x dollars of her support.

For the reasons stated above, the taxpayer is not considered as providing over half the support received by his mother in 1965. Accordingly, the taxpayer cannot claim a dependency exemption for his mother in the taxable year under consideration.

Revenue Ruling 58-404, C.B. 1958-2, 56, involves a father who arranged with a college to provide tuition and board for his son in the fall of 1956 under an agreement to pay for these items of support in January 1957. There the father not only had an unconditional obligation to pay for the support items furnished; but he also, through his arrangement with the college to provide his son with tuition and board in 1956, took affirmative steps to provide his son with these items of support. These facts meet the requirements that there be `something more than an unfulfilled duty or obligation to pay' referred to in the Donner case.

Revenue Ruling 220, C.B. 1953-2, 22, holds that where a divorced husband, in violation of a court order, fails to make payments of `child support' for a calendar year, but pays the arrearage in a subsequent year, the amount thereof does not constitute support of the child furnished by the husband, either for the year in which such payments were in arrears or for the year in which the arrearage was paid. The father, in that case, failed to take any affirmative steps to provide for the support of his child during the calendar year. The arrearages paid in a subsequent year were merely reimbursements to his divorced wife for amounts she had paid for the child's support. Since the divorced husband took no affirmative steps to provide for the support of his child for the calendar year to which the arrearages related, he was not considered to have furnished the items of support which were received by his child in that year.

Revenue Ruling 58-404, C.B. 1958-2, 56, clarified.