Many thanks, seizethecarp :)
The dependents name would be on that tax return.
The “related by birth” would have to have some document to back it up, correct?
That MAY BE where that “home birth” type of b.c. would come into play.
“The ‘related by birth’ would have to have some document to back it up, correct?”
I expect that in 1973, only if the Dunhams were audited would they have to show a family blood/adoption relationship of the taxpayer to the claimed dependent. The IRS might demand that the tax filer show up with birth certificates and marriage licenses to support suspicious deductions. In no way would this be a suspicious deduction.
I suspect that Congress did not want Americans claiming sizable deductions for multiple unrelated children residing in other countries (which I am sure was tried by creative tax evaders).