1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*5 Decision will be entered for respondent.
P claimed a $ 10,131 overpayment on his return for 1993. R
applied all of the overpayment to P's assessed tax liabilities
for 1990 and 1991. Thereafter, R determined that P was liable
for a $ 5,926 deficiency for 1993. P concedes the deficiency and
does not now claim an overpayment for 1993. P claims that R
improperly determined P's tax liabilities for 1990 and 1991.
HELD: This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether R
properly determined the assessed liabilities for years not
before the Court.
112 T.C. 46">*46 [1] COHEN, CHIEF JUDGE: This case was assigned to Special Trial1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*7 Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr., pursuant to the provisions of
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
[2] ARMEN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year 1993 in the amount of $ 5,926.
[3] After concessions by petitioner, the only issue for decision is whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide whether respondent properly applied an overpayment of tax for 1993, the taxable year in issue, to assessed liabilities for taxable years not in issue in this case. We hold that this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
[4] Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in New York, New York, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court.
[5] 112 T.C. 46">*47 Petitioner1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*8 made three estimated tax payments for 1993, the taxable year in issue, in the total amount of $ 31,000. Thereafter, on April 15, 1994, petitioner requested an extension of time to file his 1993 return, which request was granted. Petitioner made an additional $ 7,000 payment with that request. Thus, petitioner made payments for 1993 in the total amount of $ 38,000.
[6] Petitioner filed his 1993 return on April 28, 1997, and reported tax thereon in the amount of $ 27,869. Based on his reported tax and his total payments, petitioner claimed an overpayment for 1993 in the amount of $ 10,131 (i.e., $ 38,000 - $ 27,869). Respondent applied the $ 10,131 overpayment to petitioner's assessed tax liabilities for 1990 and 1991 as follows:
Year | Amount Applied |
1990 | $ 3,081.54 |
1991 | 7,049.46 |
Total | 10,131.00 |
Petitioner's assessed tax liabilities for 1990 and 1991 included interest and penalties.
[7] On November 20, 1997, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner. In the notice, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for 1993 in the amount of $ 5,926. Thereafter, petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court.
[8] Prior to trial, petitioner conceded1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*9 the deficiency determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency, and the parties filed a stipulation of settled issues to that effect. Petitioner also concedes that respondent was authorized to apply the $ 10,131 overpayment that petitioner claimed on his 1993 return to his 1990 and 1991 taxable years. Petitioner contends that respondent improperly determined petitioner's tax liabilities -- specifically interest and penalties -- for 1990 and 1991. Thus, according to petitioner, some portion of the $ 10,131 overpayment is now available as an offset against the agreed deficiency for 1993.
112 T.C. 46">*48 OPINION
[9] This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction; accordingly, we may only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly permitted or provided by statute.
if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and further
finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of income tax
for the same taxable year, * * * or finds that there is a
deficiency but that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such
tax, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the
amount of such overpayment * * *.
See
[10] Because respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency and petitioner filed a timely petition, we have jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency or to determine an overpayment for the year in issue. However, petitioner concedes the deficiency, and he does not now claim an overpayment for the year in issue. Rather, petitioner contends that respondent improperly determined petitioner's assessed liabilities for interest and penalties for 1990 and 1991 and that, as a consequence, some portion of the $ 10,131 overpayment that petitioner claimed1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*11 on his 1993 return is now available as an offset against the agreed deficiency for 1993. We hold, however, that we lack jurisdiction in this proceeding to review respondent's assessment of petitioner's liabilities for interest and penalties for 1990 and 1991.
[11] Our analysis begins with
[12]
1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*12 [13] Pursuant to the authority conferred by
[14] Our holding in this case is supported by an opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the circuit to which this case is appealable, that predates the enactment of
[15] The present case is distinguishable from
[16] The issue in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. was whether the Commissioner abused his authority by failing to offset the prior years' overpayments against the present years' underpayments. The Commissioner argued that pursuant to
[17] We agreed that pursuant to
[18] 112 T.C. 46">*51 In the case before us, petitioner does not contest respondent's determination, including the proposed interest calculation on the deficiency, for the year in issue. Unlike
[19] To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as1999 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5">*17 the parties' stipulation of settled issues,
[20] Decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2.
3. Interest on the present years' underpayments was affected because there is no net interest due for the period of mutual indebtedness if the Commissioner exercises his authority to offset under
4. If petitioner has in fact overpaid his liabilities for 1990 and 1991, he may have a remedy in another forum as to those years. Thus, if applicable limitations periods remain open, petitioner may file a claim for refund for 1990 and 1991 with the Internal Revenue Service, and, if such claim is denied, petitioner may be entitled to sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See