v b
 |
There was some confusion in the tax code a few years ago about 1/1 birthdates. The issue came to a head when the IRS got all the birthdates from the SSA and could begin to verify them when processing tax returns...suddenly some parents lost the $1000 child tax credit because their teen was born 1/1 and had just turned 17.
Parents understandably screamed bloody murder as they certainly did NOT get the tax credit the year *before* the child was born and it didn't make sense to only get 15 years of credit instead of 16 just because it was a 1/1 birthdate. So the 1/1 rules changed to common sense.
However, when it comes to retirement, the 1/1 rule STAYED.
As in "A person attains a given age the day before his or her birthday. Consequently, someone born on January 1 is considered to have attained his or her given age on December 31 of the previous year." or as you can see on the 1040, line 39A, "You were born before January 2, 1944"--but here, the inclusion gets the retiree money.
The concept of the "attaining" your age dates back a few hundred years...and works on the idea that you attain your age on the last day of the year, not the anniversary of your birth. |
|
Judy1
|
No, your relative is wrong. The baby would have to have been born before midnight, while it was still 2008. |
|
travelguruette
|
No, sorry. She must have been born before midnight of 12/31. The 6 month rule that other guy mentioned was for already existing children not for newborns. Even if there is a live birth, a birth certificate, and an immediate death, the child is deductible. |
|
hrblockchristinew
|
No she can not be claimed because she was not born dec 31 2008.
You also need a social security card for 2009 to claim her.
Christine
This advice was prepared based on our understanding of the tax law in effect at the time it was written as sit applies to the facts that you have provided. http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/index.html
http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html |
|
bostonianinmo
|
Your relative is wrong. The child must be born in 2008 or earlier to be claimed as a dependent. She was not. |
|
prescientone
|
No...she did not exist in 2008...your relative is mistaken, (don't listen to your relatives) |
|
OFFICER SEXY PEACH
 |
no,she had to be born in 2008 by 12/31/2008 11:59 p.m.
sorry |
|
cynic47
 |
Sorry, but she was an hour and 29 minutes too late for that. |
|
Crazy
|
Nope. |
|
getup24880
 |
NO and it is not because she was not born before dec. 31 2008. For you to be able to claim her. You would have to have her in your care and living with you and paying for her expenses for the whole year or at least 6months of 2008 for you to claim and being in your wife belly dont count. LOL my son was born in may and they ask you on your return if your kid was living and in your care for at least 6 months for you to claim her. SORRY |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
