I’ve blogged Section 152 custodial parent cases for a decade, but the family law bar and the divorce courts either don’t care or don’t know. If any reader knows of a malpractice claim arising from a divorce dependency deduction split, I’d like to know about it. I can’t think there hasn’t been any.

STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel has Melissa Correll, T. C. Memo. 2025-31, filed 4/9/25, and it’s same old, same old.

“Petitioner and her ex-husband are the parents of petitioner’s older two children. Pursuant to their separation and divorce, petitioner and her ex-husband executed a settlement agreement that included arrangements for claiming their children as dependents. Under the original agreement, petitioner was entitled to claim Child No. 2 as her dependent for income tax purposes, and the father was entitled to claim Child No. 1. The agreement was updated in 2015 to reverse this arrangement: Petitioner was entitled to claim Child No. 1 as a dependent, and the father was entitled to claim Child No. 2.

“Despite the revised agreement and the fact that both children lived with their father full time, for many years the parents’ practice had been to follow the original agreement. For the year at issue, however, both parents claimed Child No. 2. Unbeknownst to petitioner, her ex-husband claimed Child No. 2 instead of Child No. 1 because Child No. 1 was no longer a minor.” Order, at p. 2.

My ultrasophisticated readers have doubtless tuned out long since, so I alone must cry out “Section 152(c)(1)(B); see also Section 152(c)(1)–(3).”

Takes STJ Publius Siegel four (count ’em, four) pages to dispose of Melissa’s deduction. But it takes four (count ’em, four) IRS attorneys to get there. With the Service reeling from budget cuts, Section 6103 violations, and senior resignations, is there no more efficient use to be made of remaining personnel?