- Which statement is correct regarding whether the taxpayer may claim the father as a dependent for 2025?
Answer: Yes, because the father's gross income is below the 2025 qualifying-relative income limit and the taxpayer provided more than half of his support.
IRC §§152(d)(1)(B), (C), and 103(a). Choice B is correct. The gross-income test for a qualifying relative uses the father's gross income, and tax-exempt municipal bond interest is excluded from gross income. His gross income is $5,100, below the 2025 qualifying-relative income limit of $5,200, and the taxpayer paid $10,000 of the $15,500 support, which is more than half. Choice A incorrectly counts the tax-exempt interest as gross income; Choice C wrongly treats living in the taxpayer's household and having taxable income as disqualifying; Choice D incorrectly eliminates the statutory gross-income limit for a parent.
- For 2025, a single taxpayer, age 39, maintains a household that is the home for herself and her 70-year-old mother for the entire year. The mother is a U.S. citizen, has a valid Social Security number, is unmarried, and does not file a joint return. Her only income is $4,800 from a taxable pension and $9,000 in nontaxable Social Security benefits, which she deposits in savings and does not use for support. The mother's total support costs for the year are $12,000; the taxpayer pays $7,200 of that amount and the mother pays the remaining $4,800 from her pension. The taxpayer pays more than half the cost of keeping up the home and will claim her mother as a dependent. If the taxpayer does not itemize, what is her standard deduction for 2025?
Answer: $23,625
Under IRC §§ 2(b), 152(d), and 63(c), a parent qualifies as a dependent if the parent's gross income is less than $5,200, the taxpayer provides more than half of the parent's support, and the parent is not filing a joint return and is not a qualifying child of another taxpayer. The mother's gross income is only the $4,800 taxable pension; the $9,000 of nontaxable Social Security benefits is not included in gross income for this test. Because the mother is a dependent and the taxpayer paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home for the year, the taxpayer's filing status is head of household. The 2025 head-of-household standard deduction is $23,625, and the taxpayer is 39 and not blind, so there is no additional standard deduction. Choice A ($15,750) is the single standard deduction and generally results from incorrectly treating the mother as not being a dependent, such as counting nontaxable Social Security in her gross income. Choice C ($25,625) adds $2,000 for the mother's age; the additional standard deduction for age is based on the taxpayer's own age or blindness, not a dependent's. Choice D ($29,625) adds the $6,000 senior deduction for the mother; the senior deduction is personal to a taxpayer who has reached age 65 and cannot be transferred to the taxpayer claiming the parent as a dependent.
- Which statement is correct regarding the taxpayer's 2025 return?
Answer: The taxpayer may claim the child as a dependent but may not use head-of-household status, because a Form 8332 release does not change the head-of-household residency test.
IRC §152(e) and §2(b). A valid Form 8332 release allows the noncustodial parent to claim the child as a dependent, but it does not change the head-of-household residency test, which requires a qualifying child to have the taxpayer's home as the principal place of abode for more than half the year. Here the child lived with the former spouse for all of 2025, so the taxpayer may claim the dependent but may not use head-of-household status; Choice D is therefore correct. Choice A ignores the residency requirement for head-of-household filing status; Choice B reverses the dependent and head-of-household results; Choice C invents a joint-return requirement for a Form 8332 release.
- Which of the following is correct regarding the "considered unmarried" rule for a married taxpayer claiming head-of-household status in 2025?
Answer: A married taxpayer is considered unmarried when the taxpayer files separately, pays over half the cost of maintaining a home that was the principal place of abode of a child the taxpayer may claim as a dependent for more than half the year, and the spouse was not a member of the household during the last six months.
IRC § 7703(b) treats a married taxpayer as unmarried for head-of-household purposes when the taxpayer files a separate return, maintains a home for more than half the year that is the principal place of abode of a child the taxpayer may claim as a dependent, and the spouse was not a member of the household during the last six months of the tax year. Choice A states this rule. Choice B is wrong because the considered-unmarried rule requires a separate return; a taxpayer who files a joint return cannot claim head-of-household status. Choice C reverses the temporary-absence rule: under Treas. Reg. § 1.7703-1 and Pub. 501, a spouse who is temporarily absent for special circumstances, such as military service, illness, business, or education, is treated as still living in the home, so the absence does not satisfy the last-six-months test. Choice D is wrong because the home must be the principal place of abode of the taxpayer's child, not merely an unrelated dependent, even if that dependent is otherwise qualifying.
- For 2025, a married couple, both age 68 and both of whom have valid Social Security numbers, file a joint return. They have no dependents and will not itemize. Their modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for purposes of the senior deduction is $200,000. What is the total amount of the standard deduction and the senior deduction they may subtract in computing taxable income?
Answer: $40,700
IRC § 63(c) (standard deduction) and IRC § 151(d)(5)(C) (senior deduction, claimed on Schedule 1-A). A married couple filing jointly, both age 65 or older, have the $31,500 basic standard deduction plus $1,600 for each spouse's age: $31,500 + $1,600 + $1,600 = $34,700. The senior deduction is separate and is subtracted after adjusted gross income in computing taxable income: $6,000 per qualifying spouse, with each $6,000 reduced, but not below zero, by 6% of MAGI over $150,000 for a joint return. The excess is $200,000 − $150,000 = $50,000, and 6% of $50,000 is $3,000. That $3,000 reduction applies to each spouse's $6,000, so each spouse has $3,000 and the couple has $6,000. Total: $34,700 + $6,000 = $40,700. Choice B is correct. Choice A ($34,700) is wrong because it is the standard deduction alone and omits the senior deduction. Choice C ($43,700) is wrong because it reduces the combined $12,000 only once by $3,000; the reduction applies to each spouse's $6,000. Choice D ($46,700) is wrong because it ignores the MAGI phase-out and allows the full $12,000.
- Which statement is correct concerning the daughter for 2025?
Answer: The daughter is a qualifying relative, not a qualifying child, because she was not a full-time student for at least five calendar months and her gross income is below the 2025 limit.
IRC §152(c)(1) and §152(d)(1). A 22-year-old who is not permanently disabled must be a full-time student for at least five calendar months to be a qualifying child; her January-through-April enrollment is insufficient. She may still be a qualifying relative because her gross income of $4,700 is below the 2025 limit of $5,200 and the taxpayer provided more than half of her support. Choice A ignores the full-time-student requirement; Choice B ignores the qualifying-relative test; Choice D applies a home-maintenance requirement to dependency instead of the support test.
- Which of the following is correct regarding the qualifying surviving spouse filing status for 2025?
Answer: A taxpayer whose spouse died in 2023 may use qualifying surviving spouse status for 2025 if the taxpayer has not remarried, was entitled to file jointly for the year of death, has a child or stepchild who lived with the taxpayer all year and can be claimed as a dependent, and pays more than half the cost of keeping up the home.
IRC § 2(a) permits qualifying surviving spouse status when the spouse died in either of the two taxable years immediately preceding the current year, the taxpayer has not remarried, the taxpayer was entitled to file a joint return in the year of death, and for the entire year the taxpayer maintains a home that is the principal place of abode of a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter whom the taxpayer can claim as a dependent, while paying more than half the cost of keeping up the home. Choice A is correct because a spouse's death in 2023 permits the status for 2024 and 2025. Choice B is wrong because the required child or stepchild dependent cannot be an unrelated adult. Choice C is wrong because remarriage during 2025 ends eligibility for that year, and the child must live with the taxpayer for the entire year, not more than half. Choice D is wrong because a spouse's death in 2022 permits the status only for 2023 and 2024, not 2025.
- Which of the following is correct regarding the definition of a qualifying child for the 2025 tax year?
Answer: A child who is permanently and totally disabled at any time during the year satisfies the age test regardless of age, provided the child also meets the relationship, residence, support, and joint-return tests.
IRC § 152(c) defines a qualifying child through the relationship, residence, age, support, and joint-return tests; under § 152(c)(3)(C), permanent and total disability removes the age limitation. Choice A is therefore correct: a permanently and totally disabled child can satisfy the age test at any age if the other statutory tests are met. Choice B misstates the test by importing the qualifying-relative gross income limit; a qualifying child has no gross income limit. Choice C misstates the residence test, which requires the child to share the taxpayer's home for more than half the tax year, not the entire year. Choice D reverses the joint-return exception: a married child who files a joint return is not a qualifying child unless the return is filed solely to claim a refund of withheld income tax or estimated tax; the exception is not conditioned on reporting a positive tax liability.
- Which statement is correct regarding whether the taxpayer may claim the son as a dependent for 2025?
Answer: Yes, because the son meets the qualifying relative gross income test and the refund-only joint return satisfies the joint-return exception.
IRC § 152(b)(2) and § 152(d)(1)(B); Pub. 501. A married individual who files a joint return generally cannot be claimed as a dependent, but the joint-return bar does not apply when the return is filed solely to claim a refund of withheld tax and no tax liability exists. The son—who is not a qualifying child because he is 25 and not a full-time student—has gross income of only $2,500, below the $5,200 qualifying relative limit, and the taxpayer provided all his support. Choice B states the joint-return rule without the refund exception. Choice C is wrong because the son is not a qualifying child. Choice D incorrectly combines the wife's gross income with the son's; only the son's own gross income is tested for his dependency.
- Which statement is correct concerning who may treat the child as a qualifying child for 2025?
Answer: The mother may treat the child as a qualifying child because, when a child is a qualifying child of both a parent and a nonparent, the child is treated as the qualifying child of the parent.
IRC §152(c)(4). When an individual is a qualifying child of both a parent and a nonparent, the tie-breaker treats the child as the qualifying child of the parent, regardless of relative support or adjusted gross income. Choice B is correct. Choice A treats the support test as decisive for qualifying-child status, which it is not; Choice C applies the higher-AGI rule to the wrong comparison; Choice D confuses a Form 2120 multiple-support agreement with a qualifying-child tie-breaker.
- A taxpayer's spouse died in 2024, and she has not remarried. Her son, age 9, lived with her all year and can be claimed as her dependent. She paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home. She is age 67 and is not blind. For 2025, what is her standard deduction, determined without regard to the separate senior deduction?
Answer: $33,100
Under IRC § 2(a) and § 63(c), because the spouse died in 2024 and the taxpayer has not remarried, 2025 is the first of the two years after the year of death in which she may use qualifying surviving spouse status if she has a son who can be claimed as a dependent, the son lived with her all year, and she paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home. A qualifying surviving spouse uses the MFJ/QSS basic standard deduction, $31,500. She is 67, so she also receives the additional standard deduction for age; for a surviving spouse the additional amount is $1,600, because the $2,000 unmarried amount applies only if the taxpayer is unmarried and not a surviving spouse. Her standard deduction is $31,500 + $1,600 = $33,100, excluding the separate senior deduction. Choice A ($23,625) uses the head-of-household standard deduction instead of qualifying surviving spouse. Choice B ($25,625) also uses head-of-household and adds the $2,000 age addition, both of which are wrong for a qualifying surviving spouse. Choice C ($31,500) uses the correct filing status but omits the additional standard deduction for age.
- Which statement is correct about Child D's claim?
Answer: Child D may not claim the mother because a person claiming under a multiple support agreement must provide more than 10% of the support.
IRC § 152(d)(3). Under a multiple support agreement, the person claiming the dependent must provide more than 10% of the individual's support. Child D provided $1,800 of the $20,000 total support, exactly 9%, so Child D cannot be the claimant even though the group otherwise satisfies the multiple-support conditions. Choice A and Choice B ignore the more-than-10% claimant requirement; Choice D states the ordinary qualifying-relative support rule rather than the multiple-support agreement rule.
- What is the most favorable filing status the taxpayer is entitled to use for 2025?
Answer: Head of household, because the taxpayer is unmarried, paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home, and a qualifying child lived there all year.
IRC §2(a) and §2(b). Choice A is correct. For 2025, the qualifying surviving spouse lookback is to the two immediately preceding taxable years—2024 and 2023. A spouse who died in 2022 cannot support qualifying surviving spouse status for 2025; at most, the taxpayer could have qualified in 2023 and 2024 if the other QSS conditions were met. Here, the taxpayer is unmarried in 2025, paid more than half the cost of keeping up the home, and a qualifying child lived with the taxpayer all year, so head of household is the most favorable status. Choice B incorrectly applies a three-year lookback. Choice C misstates the QSS period and incorrectly treats head of household as unavailable. Choice D treats the taxpayer as married for 2025, but the taxpayer is unmarried and no joint return with the deceased spouse is in issue.
- Which of the following is correct regarding head-of-household filing status when the taxpayer's qualifying person is a parent?
Answer: To use head-of-household status based on a parent, the taxpayer must be entitled to claim the parent as a dependent and must pay more than half the cost of keeping up the parent's principal residence; the parent need not live with the taxpayer.
IRC § 2(b) and the head-of-household rules allow a parent to be a qualifying person even when the parent does not live with the taxpayer, as long as the taxpayer can claim the parent as a dependent and pays more than half the cost of maintaining the parent's principal residence. Choice A reverses who keeps up the home: the rule turns on the taxpayer paying more than half the cost of keeping up the parent's principal residence, not on the parent maintaining a home for the taxpayer, and the parent's own dependency status elsewhere is not the test. Choice C treats the dependency support test as if it satisfied the separate head-of-household home-cost test. Choice D is wrong because a person who is a dependent only by reason of a multiple-support agreement (§ 152(d)(3)) cannot be a qualifying person for head-of-household status under § 2(b)(3)(B), whoever pays the cost of the home.
