Packard v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. No. 15

Petitioner Packard and his wife married in 2008 and lived separately until purchasing a jointly-owned residence on Dec 1, 2009.
W previously owned and resided in a principal residence in Clearwater from Apr 1, 2004 to Nov 17, 2009.
P had no present ownership interest in a principal residence during the three years before Dec 1, 2009.
On their 2009 return, they claimed a $6,500 first-time homebuyer credit under §36(c)(6).
Respondent denied the credit; Petitioner timely filed a petition in Tax Court seeking summary judgment.
The issue is whether the §36(c)(1) and §36(c)(6) exceptions can apply to a married couple where each spouse individually qualifies under different provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can §36(c)(6) be used for one spouse while the other uses §36(c)(1)?	Packard argues §36(c)(6) expands eligibility for the couple.	Packard contends both spouses must qualify under the same paragraph.	Yes; both spouses may qualify under different provisions.
Do §36(c)(1) and §36(c)(6) together define the couple as first-time homebuyers for the credit?	Individually eligible under §36(c)(1) or §36(c)(6).	The statutory text requires a unified approach restricting to both spouses qualifying under the same framework.	They are both treated as first-time homebuyers, enabling the credit.

United States v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 310 U.S. 534 (1940) (plain meaning vs. purpose when interpreting statutes)
Colestock v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 380 (1994) (consult statutory purpose in interpretation)
House v. Commissioner, 453 F.2d 982 (5th Cir. 1972) (words to determine purpose and meaning in statutes)
United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 358 (1806) (look to purpose when plain meaning yields absurd result)