Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Robert K. Stewart, Jr. v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1998-319, Docket No. 4901-97., Filed September 8, 1998

Robert K. Stewart, Jr. v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1998-319, Docket No. 4901-97., Filed September 8, 1998


Robert K. Stewart, Jr. v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1998-319

Docket No. 4901-97.

Filed September 8, 1998.

Robert K. Stewart, Jr., pro se. Kay Hill, for the respondent.


LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of a $17,287 deficiency in his 1990 Federal income tax and a $4,297 addition thereto under section 6651(a)(1). Following concessions, the only issue left to decide is whether we are authorized to determine any overpayment from 1989 that petitioner may credit to his 1990 Federal income tax liability. We hold we are not. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.


Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and the exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Anchorage, Alaska, when he petitioned the Court.

Petitioner filed his 1989 Federal income tax return on March 5, 1996. Petitioner claimed thereon that he had a $4,312 overpayment which he was applying to 1990. Petitioner filed his 1990 Federal income tax return on June 13, 1996.

Respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency for 1990 on December 3, 1996. In the notice of deficiency, respondent did not reference an overpayment for 1989. Respondent asserts that a refund or credit of any 1989 overpayment is time-barred.


Petitioner asks the Court to reduce his deficiency for 1990 by an overpayment that he has for 1989. We decline to do so. We are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we derive our jurisdiction from Congress. Neilson v. Commissioner [Dec. 46,301], 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner [Dec. 42,414], 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. In general, the Congress has empowered us to redetermine deficiencies which have been determined by respondent. See secs. 6213 and 6214; Murphree v. Commissioner [Dec. 43,531], 87 T.C. 1309, 1311 (1986); see also sec. 6211 (meaning of the word "deficiency"). When respondent has not determined a deficiency for a year, we generally may not redetermine if a deficiency or overpayment is present for that year. See sec. 6214(b) ("The Tax Court in redetermining a deficiency * * * shall have no jurisdiction to determine whether or not the tax for any other year or calendar quarter has been overpaid or underpaid"); see also Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co. [47-1 USTC ╤ 9106], 329 U.S. 296 (1946); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co. [43-2 USTC ╤ 9637], 320 U.S. 418(1943); Hays v. Commissioner [Dec. 51,120(M)], T.C. Memo. 1996-18; Warden v. Commissioner [Dec. 46,679(M)], T.C. Memo. 1990-321, affd. without published opinion sub nom. Beam v. Commissioner, 956 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir. 1992); Stowman v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,076(M)], T.C. Memo. 1983-235; Hutchinson v. Commissioner [Dec. 37,456(M)], T.C. Memo. 1980-551.

In the instant case, respondent has determined a deficiency for 1990, and petitioner's 1990 taxable year is the only year that is before the Court. Thus, even if petitioner did overpay his 1989 tax, a matter on which we express no opinion, we would lack jurisdiction to apply that overpayment against petitioner's deficiency for 1990.

We have considered all arguments made by petitioner for a contrary holding, and, to the extent not addressed above, find them to be without merit. To reflect respondent's concessions,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.


Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Почему в суд выгодно представлять именно электронные документы?

Право и возможность подачи электронных документов в суд предоставлено в России давно. Однако по старинке стороны ходят на заседания с большими папками бумажных документов вместо планшетов или ноутбуков. Почему?

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Ошибки риэлтора могут помешать получению имущественного вычета

При совершении сделок при покупке или продаже жилья советую быть внимательным при подписании договора купли-продажи. В противном случае покупатель не сможет вернуть НДФЛ в полном размере.