Final answer:
Victoria might be considered Tameka's qualifying child for tax purposes if specific conditions are met, including the type of legal arrangement and meeting the residency test by exceptions. However, with information provided, it is uncertain whether Victoria would fully meet the criteria without additional details on the length and nature of the court placement.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to whether Victoria can be classified as a qualifying child or a qualifying relative for tax purposes under Tameka's care. Based on the information given, Victoria meets several tests to be considered a qualifying child. To be a qualifying child, the individual must be the taxpayer's child, stepchild, foster child, sibling, stepsibling, or a descendant of any of them (such as a grandchild or niece), must have lived with the taxpayer for more than half of the tax year (exceptions apply for births, deaths, and temporary absences), must be under age 19 at the end of the year and younger than the taxpayer (under 24 if a full-time student), must not have provided more than half of their own support during the year, and must not file a joint return for the year. Victoria lived with her mother for 10 months, but since she was lawfully placed in Tameka's care by a court and Tameka provided 20% of her support, it sounds like Tameka may meet the requirements to claim her as a qualifying child. However, since Victoria did not live with Tameka for more than half of the year, she may not meet the residency test unless specific exceptions apply. Further information about the legal arrangement, especially regarding duration and permanency, would be necessary to make a definitive determination.