Decision will be entered under
R issued a mathematical or clerical error notice to Ps for the 2008 tax year, which gave rise to an overpayment of $7,714. R applied $5,570 of the overpayment against tax owed for the 2004, 2006, and 2007 taxable years. R subsequently audited Ps' 2008 tax return and issued a notice of deficiency determining a deficiency in income tax of $6,829.
WHERRY,
After concessions by the parties, 2 the only issues for decision are (1) whether respondent properly applied the overpayment determined in the mathematical or clerical notice for 2008 was properly against tax owed for the 2004, 2006, and 2007 taxable years and (2) whether respondent may determine a deficiency for a taxable year, 2008, for which a mathematical or clerical error notice of overpayment was previously issued.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of the parties with accompanying exhibits are incorporated 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 250">*252 herein by reference. 3 At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in California.
Petitioners timely filed their joint Federal income tax return for the 2008 taxable year. Petitioners self-prepared their Federal income tax return, which inter alia contained various mathematical errors. Petitioners' Federal income tax return had items of income on incorrect lines and contained strikeouts, whiteouts, and figures in the margin. On the basis of the amounts reported in the filed 2008 Federal income tax return, respondent corrected the mathematical errors and calculated a negative 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 250">*253 taxable income for the 2008 taxable year. On August 24, 2009, respondent issued a mathematical or clerical error notice (error notice), Notice CP16, to petitioners for the 2008 tax year. The error notice explained that *246 petitioners made errors on their 2008 tax return resulting in an overpayment and that a credit was to be issued. According to respondent, petitioners owed Federal income tax for the 2004, 2006, and 2007 taxable years of $558, $4,674, and $336, respectively. As stated in the error notice, respondent applied $5,570 4 of the total $7,414 overpayment credit to the amounts owed for the 2004, 2006, and 2007 taxable years. The error notice stated that if petitioners disagreed with the error notice, then they were permitted to file with the Secretary a request for abatement of the assessment within 60 days of the mailing of the error notice.
Respondent audited petitioners' 2008 tax return 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 250">*254 and proposed various adjustments resulting in an increase in their taxable income. On March 21, 2011, respondent issued a notice of deficiency for the 2008 taxable year determining a deficiency of $6,829. Respondent and petitioners now agree on the amount of income petitioners received for the 2008 taxable year.
On account of the mathematical or clerical errors on petitioners' 2008 Federal income tax return respondent calculated and assessed tax pursuant to
If petitioners disagreed with the error notice, then they were permitted 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 250">*255 to dispute it by filing with the Secretary a request for abatement of the assessment within 60 days of the mailing of the error notice.
Petitioners believe that respondent should not be permitted to apply the error notice overpayment from the 2008 year against tax due for the 2004, 2006, and 2007 taxable years. Specifically, they contend they paid their 2008 tax and if $5,570 of that payment had not been applied for 2004, 2006, and 2007 there would be no tax deficiency for the 2008 taxable year. They also contend that they did not owe any additional tax for 2004, 2006, or 2007 and that by applying the 2008 payment for those years respondent is preventing them from contesting, in a prepayment status, whether they owed tax for those years.
A timely petition in response to a timely notice of deficiency invokes this Court's jurisdiction over the taxable year at issue.
The Commissioner is permitted to issue a notice of deficiency for the same taxable year for which he has previously adjusted a taxpayer's Federal income tax return on the losses of an error notice.
When petitioners challenged the notice of deficiency for the 2008 taxable year, the Court was granted jurisdiction over that year.
We lack jurisdiction to review respondent's application of tax credits associated with the error notice to taxes owed for years other than 2008, the year for which the deficiency notice was issued. Further, respondent is permitted to subsequently issue a notice of deficiency for the same taxable year as the error notice. We have considered all of petitioners' contentions, arguments, requests, and statements. To the extent not discussed herein we conclude that they are meritless, moot, or irrelevant.
*251 To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the taxable year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2. The parties agree that in the 2008 tax year petitioners received taxable dividends of $278, Social Security benefits of $18,704, interest income of $969, taxable retirement income of $57,936, a taxable individual retirement account distribution of $1,888, and a tax refund of $288 from the State of California. Respondent also determined in the statutory notice of deficiency that petitioners had additional withholding of $401 for the 2008 tax year over the amount reported on their 2008 Federal income tax return.↩
3. Respondent objected at trial to Exhibits 15-P, 20-P, 22-P through 28-P, and 31-P through 35-P on the grounds of relevance.
4. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar unless otherwise specified.↩
5. Petitioners also claimed they should be entitled to a medical expense deduction for 2008 higher than the amount respondent originally allowed. Specifically, petitioners claimed an increase in their medical expense deduction for additional automobile mileage and for medical and dental insurance costs they paid. Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and petitioners bear the burden of proving their entitlement to them.
6. While there are exceptions, such as carryforwards or carrybacks which may bring other taxable years into issue, petitioners do not allege any such exception is applicable here.
