Multiple head of households in the same home

It is all a matter of facts and circumstances. The Tax Court established that it is possible in The Estate of Fleming vs Comm'r, TC Memo 1974-137 and an SCA in 1998 reiterated that. The SCA also summarizes the Fleming case. It makes for interesting reading.

This has been discussed a few times over the years. My position was and still is that, in the absence oof a conjugal bed, it is possible to have two HoH's in the same house even without the house being divided.

One issue the IRS will look at is telephone service, i.e., separate or shared. Otherwise INRHO this scenario is marginal, but not unreasonable.

Dick

NO. I do not see the living areas as separable. Any sharing of the living area disqualifies multiple HoHs.

Sharing of common areas is not a detriment to concluding there are two households. So sayeth the Tax Court in the Fleming Case & The SCA I referenced. There are not enough facts presented in the OP to draw any conclusions.

I advise all to read the Fleming Case & the SCA.

An IRS auditor might take that as an initial position. But it's a facts and circumstances situation. Someone else cited the major case which had a common living area.

Dick

I agree, sharing living areas has little if anything to do with determining if there are separate households in the same house.

What I think is more relevant is whether they "live" together in other ways. For example OP indicated that they share food and food expenses. To me that strongly indicates one household rather than two.

Stu

Site, please.

George Brown

I'm with Dick on this one. I see this some, not as much as I used to, but still a couple times a year. In the absence of a conjugal bed I have no problem with multiple HOH's under a single roof.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

Very narrow facts and circumstances. The situation described here I don't believe is sufficient. Regardless, should there be two households there, I would expect it to be challenged - and as both heads are related, this could easily end up before the courts.

IRC 2. "more than 50%" => "There can be only one." (NO, let's not crosspost that to alt.tv.highlander!)

I would tend to agree with you. Just sharing living quarters is not enough to say there can be just one "household." However sharing expenses for food would, to me, tend to indicate one household instead of two.

Stu

It doesn't say more than 50% of the living area of any home. It says more than 50% of "the principal place of abode" of a qualifying child. If that "abode" includes the child's bedroom, for example, and not someone else's, that could easily tally up to being more than 50%.

Stu

Incomplete facts and circumstances is the norm in this newsgroup. The OP came looking for direction and opinion. Fleming & SCA is the direction in which to look. While the opinions vary between it is possible and it is not possible upon the narrow circumstances given.

I am on the "it is possible" side, but then my view is to aid the taxpayer in finding an optimal tax position while highlighting the gray areas. The situation as described may very well catch an audit. If so, it will almost certainly get resolved without going to court.

Dick

I certainly think it is possible but then again one of my goals in life is to get two spouses innocent spouse relief for the same tax liability. Just looking for the right fatcs.

WoW! Keep working on it.

One idea is to get one innocent spouse relief and have the other file bankruptcy.

Dick

These days, with cellphones, VOIP and the like, that's a lot less meaningful than it used to be.

Seth