@macuser_22 wrote:
This has been discussed many time before. It depend on 1) the age of emancipation in the state, usually 18 but some states are different, and 2) the child DOB.
If the 6 months living with the parent has passed before the date of emancipation then the divorced or separated parents rules are in affect because one parent did have "custody" more then 6 months.
But if the emancipation date is before 6 months passed then custody ends and nobody had custody more than 6 months.
But that is not true if you look at the actual regulation, which I quote and link above. This whole thread started because I was taking your line of thinking while the tax expert and @Hal_Al are taking the other line of thinking. Having found § 1.152-4(g), I'm convinced @Hal_Al and the expert are correct and you and I were wrong.
The regulation clearly says that if the child is emancipated, Section 152(e) does not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the parents is determined under section 152(c) or (d). Section 152(c) and (d) are the normal qualifying child and qualifying relative rules. Under that interpretation, the children of the original taxpayer here are qualifying children of the taxpayer since they lived in the taxpayer's home. Emancipation doesn't mean the child does not live with either parent, emancipation means that the special rules no longer apply and the child defaults to the normal rules.
Your statement that...
But if the emancipation date is before 6 months passed then custody ends and nobody had custody more than 6 months.
...would mean that a twenty year old student (more than 6 months since their 18th birthday) can't be the qualifying child of a parent even if they lived with the parent the entire year. So your statement disagrees with the regulation. (And note the regulation says, in the year the child turns 18 "and later years" dependency is determined under section 152(c) and (d). )
(Where this gets wonky is that the regulation, specifically § 1.152-4(g), Example 6, directly conflicts with IRS publication 501, example 6 on page 13. When the regulation conflicts with the publication, the regulation wins, so I'm going to ignore that for now.)
