EDWARD TURNEY SAVAGE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3387-98
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Filed February 16, 1999
112 T.C. No. 5
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.
Edward Turney Savage, pro se.
Daniel A. Rosen, for respondent.
COHEN, Chief Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr., pursuant to the provisions of
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Prior to trial, petitioner conceded 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.
OPINION
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction; accordingly, we may only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly permitted or provided by statute. Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. ___ (1999) (slip op. at 6); Trost v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990); Judge v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987). Thus, we have jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency if a valid notice of deficiency is issued by the Commissioner and if a timely petition is filed by the taxpayer.
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 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291, 295 (1998).
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 claimed 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.
Our analysis begins with
Pursuant to the authority conferred by
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
The present case is distinguishable from Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. In that case, the taxpayer had agreed to the Commissioner‘s determination for certain years before the Court (the present years’ underpayments). The Commissioner and the taxpayer had also agreed as to the overpayments for certain years not before the Court
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
We agreed that pursuant to
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as the parties’ stipulation of settled issues,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
