REG · Federal Taxation of Individuals · 6 practice questions
Qualifying Child vs. Qualifying Relative Support Tests
A qualifying child must not provide over half of their own support; a qualifying relative requires Monica to provide over half. Sort these support cases assuming all non-support requirements are met and no multiple support agreement applies.
Try one first
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Her 20-year-old son was a full-time student. He lived in a campus dorm for 9 months and with Monica when not in school. Monica provided more than half of his support. He earned wages, all of which he saved, of | $9,000 |
| Her father lived in his own home. Monica provided 70% of his support. His only gross income was taxable pension income of | $4,600 |
| Her 27-year-old sister lived with Monica all year. Monica provided 60% of her support. The sister had wages of | $5,400 |
Hint
Classify each person separately as a possible qualifying child or qualifying relative. Remember that school is usually a temporary absence, a parent need not live with the taxpayer, and the gross-income limit applies only to qualifying relatives.
Answer C. Monica may claim her son as a qualifying child because he is under age 24 and a full-time student, his time at school is a temporary absence from the home, and he did not provide more than half of his own support. Her father qualifies as a qualifying relative because Monica provided over half of his support and his gross income ($4,600) is below the $5,050 limit. The niece is a qualifying child because she lived with Monica all year, is within the permitted relationship and age tests, and Monica provided more than half of her support; the sister fails the gross-income test and is also too old to be a qualifying child.
Why not A: Tempting if a candidate assumes the niece cannot be claimed because her parents are alive, but here the niece lived with Monica all year so the parents do not meet the residency test to claim the child; Monica meets the qualifying-child tests for the niece.
Why not B: Tempting if one focuses only on relationship and support, but the sister's $5,400 of wages exceeds the $5,050 gross-income limit for a qualifying relative, and at age 27 she cannot be a qualifying child.
Why not D: Tempting if a candidate thinks the son's dorm residence or earnings disqualify him, but temporary absences for education count as living with the taxpayer and a qualifying child may have earnings; the stem states Monica provided more than half of his support.
Sort it
An otherwise eligible child provides 50% or less of their own total support.
An otherwise eligible relative receives more than 50% of total support from Monica.
The child provides over 50% of their own support, or Monica provides 50% or less for the relative.
| Item | Goes to |
|---|---|
| Monica's child provides none of their own support. Monica provides 40%, and others provide 60%. | Qualifying childThe child provides no self-support. Monica's contribution below 50% does not prevent qualifying child status. |
| Monica provides 60% of her relative's support. The relative provides the remaining 40%. | Qualifying relativeMonica provides more than half of the relative's total support. |
| Monica's child provides exactly 50% of their own support. Monica provides the other 50%. | Qualifying childThe child provides exactly half, not more than half. |
| Monica provides exactly 50% of her relative's support. The relative provides the other 50%. | NeitherMonica must provide more than half. Exactly 50% fails without a multiple support agreement. |
| Monica's child provides 60% of their own support. Monica provides the remaining 40%. | NeitherThe child provides over half, failing the child test. Monica's 40% also fails the relative support test. |
| Monica provides 100% of her relative's support. The relative provides nothing. | Qualifying relativeMonica's contribution exceeds half of total support. |
| Monica's child provides 40% of their own support. Monica provides 30%, and others provide 30%. | Qualifying childThe child's own share is below half. Monica does not need to provide a majority. |
| Monica provides 40% of her relative's support. The relative provides the remaining 60%. | NeitherMonica provides less than half. The relative support test measures her contribution. |
| Monica's child provides exactly 50% of their own support. Monica provides nothing, and others provide 50%. | Qualifying childReplacing Monica's contribution with support from others does not matter. The child still provides only half. |
| Monica provides exactly 50% of her relative's support. Others provide 50%, and the relative provides nothing. | NeitherThe relative's lack of self-support does not change the result. Monica still provides only half. |
Key points
- Remember: For a child, measure the child's own share; for a relative, measure Monica's share.
- Exactly 50% passes the child's support test but fails the relative's support test.
- Monica does not need to provide over half of a qualifying child's support.
How the exam traps you
- Requiring Monica to provide over half for both categories. For a qualifying child, test the child's own support, not Monica's contribution.
- Treating exactly 50% the same under both tests. The child may provide exactly half; Monica must provide more than half for the relative.
- Treating a relative's lack of self-support as enough to qualify. Measure Monica's contribution. Support from other people does not count as support she provided.
Question 2
Hint
Work the filing status in sequence: first decide whether the widow(er) rule is still available in the stated year, then decide whether the child is treated as living in the home despite being away at school.
Answer C. Head of household is correct because Lee was unmarried at year-end, paid more than half the cost of maintaining the home, and has a qualifying child. A full-time student who lives away at school is treated as having a temporary absence and is still considered to live with the taxpayer for head-of-household purposes. Qualifying surviving spouse (qualifying widow(er)) is available only for the two tax years following the year of death, so Lee cannot use that status in Year 4.
Why not A: Tempting because Lee is unmarried by year-end, but incorrect: Lee meets the head-of-household requirements (paid >50% of household costs and has a qualifying child who is treated as living with Lee despite being away at school).
Why not B: Tempting because Lee is a widow with a dependent child, but incorrect: qualifying surviving spouse status is allowed only for the two tax years after the year of death. If the spouse died in Year 1, the eligible years would be Year 2 and Year 3, not Year 4.
Why not D: Tempting for candidates who conflate filing categories after a spouse's death, but incorrect: married filing separately applies only when the taxpayer is still married at year-end and files a separate return; Lee was unmarried at the end of Year 4.
Question 3
Hint
Apply the surviving-spouse two-year timing rule first; if that window has passed, check the head-of-household tests (qualifying person, >50% support, and lived with you for more than half the year, brief absences are often permitted).
Answer A. Qualifying surviving spouse (qualified widow(er)) is available only for the two tax years following the year of death (here 20X4 and 20X5), so it is not available in 20X6. Because Alex paid more than half the cost of maintaining the household and the daughter is a qualifying child who lived with Alex for more than half the year (short, temporary absences do not necessarily break the residency test), Alex qualifies for head of household in 20X6.
Why not B: Attractive since Alex supports a dependent child and maintains the home, but qualifying surviving spouse is limited to the two tax years after the year of death, here that window was 20X4 and 20X5, so Alex cannot use it in 20X6.
Why not C: Tempting because a surviving spouse can file a joint return in the year of the spouse's death, but married filing jointly applies only for the year of death (or when a taxpayer is married on the last day of the tax year). Alex is unmarried in 20X6, so this status is not available.
Why not D: Tempting because Alex is unmarried, but 'single' is not the correct filing status when the taxpayer otherwise meets head-of-household requirements. Because Alex paid >50% of the household costs and the daughter is a qualifying child who lived with Alex most of the year, head of household is available and preferable to single.
Question 4
Hint
Separate the qualifying child test from the qualifying relative test, and pay attention to whether the son's time away counts as a temporary absence.
Answer A. Priya paid more than half the cost of maintaining the home and is unmarried. Her 22-year-old son is a full-time student who did not provide more than half of his own support, and his 10-week summer absence is a temporary absence that does not break the residency test. Therefore he is a qualifying child, and Priya may file as head of household and claim him as a dependent.
Why not B: Incorrect: the gross income limit applies to qualifying relatives, not qualifying children. A qualifying child's earned income is irrelevant so long as he did not provide more than half of his own support.
Why not C: This is tempting because candidates conflate any earned income with independence. For a qualifying child the question is whether the child provided more than half of his own support, the facts say he did not, so his wages alone do not bar dependency or HOH status.
Why not D: Incorrect: there is an exception to the age-19 rule for full-time students under age 24. Since the son is 22 and was a full-time student, he meets the age test for a qualifying child and thus can be a qualifying person for HOH.
Question 5
Hint
Classify each person separately first: qualifying child rules differ from qualifying relative rules, and not everyone must live with the taxpayer.
Answer B. The daughter is a qualifying child because she was under age 24 and a full-time student, and a student's time away at school counts as a temporary absence for the residence test. The mother qualifies as a qualifying relative because Jordan provided more than half of her support and her only income was nontaxable Social Security (which is excluded from gross income). The cousin fails the qualifying relative gross income test because his $20,000 of gross income is well above the allowable limit.
Why not A: This is tempting if a candidate incorrectly believes a parent must live in the taxpayer's home to be a dependent. A parent is a permitted relative without living with the taxpayer, and here Jordan provided more than half of the mother's support; the mother's nontaxable Social Security does not prevent her from qualifying.
Why not C: This choice lures candidates who assume the cousin's full-year residence is sufficient. Although the cousin lived with Jordan all year (satisfying the household-member test), the cousin's $20,000 gross income disqualifies him under the qualifying relative gross income test. The daughter still qualifies as a dependent.
Why not D: This distractor appeals to candidates who focus only on support and household residence and overlook the separate gross income limit for qualifying relatives. The cousin's gross income exceeds that limit, so he cannot be claimed as a dependent.
Question 6
Hint
Count the filing-status progression after a spouse's death: year of death first, then the next two years, then determine whether another more favorable status still applies.
Answer D. Jordan cannot file married filing jointly in 20X6 because MFJ applies only in the year of the spouse's death (20X3). Qualifying surviving spouse is available only for the two tax years following the year of death (here, 20X4 and 20X5), so it is not available for 20X6. Jordan meets the head-of-household tests for 20X6 (unmarried at year-end, paid >50% of household costs, and had a qualifying dependent child living with Jordan), so head of household is the appropriate status.
Why not A: Tempting because surviving-spouse treatment can allow joint filing, but MFJ is only available in the year the spouse died, not for later years such as 20X6.
Why not B: A strong distractor since Jordan is unmarried and supports a dependent child, but qualifying surviving spouse status is limited to the two tax years after the year of death (20X4 and 20X5 for a spouse who died in 20X3), so it is not available in 20X6.
Why not C: Jordan is unmarried at year-end, but single should not be used when the taxpayer qualifies for head of household; the facts show Jordan meets the head-of-household requirements.
Common questions
How do qualifying child and qualifying relative support tests differ?
The qualifying child test measures whether the child provided more than half of their own support. The qualifying relative test measures whether Monica provided more than half of the relative's support.
Can a child qualify as a dependent if they provide exactly half their support?
Yes, if all non-support requirements are met. Exactly half is not more than half, so the child passes the support test.
Can I claim a qualifying relative if I provide exactly half their support?
Not under the ordinary support test used here. Without a multiple support agreement, Monica must provide more than half.
Practice REG like the real exam
The free ChatCPA simulator: real exam layout, timed testlets, starting with a question on this topic. No account needed to start.
Open the free simulator →More on Filing Status and Exemptions
Questions from the ChatCPA bank of 17,658 CPA exam questions, each with a written reason for every wrong answer. ChatCPA is built by Nicholas Miller, CPA (Oregon #14907). How these pages are made. Spot an error? Tell us.