Mary E. Bryant and Darwin R. Bryant, Deceased v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1992-378, Docket No. 22372-90., Filed July 6, 1992

Mary E. Bryant and Darwin R. Bryant, Deceased v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1992-378

Docket No. 22372-90.

Filed July 6, 1992.

Mary E. Bryant, pro se. H. Elizabeth Downs and Roxanne T. Conrad, for the respondent.

Memorandum Opinion

NIMS, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (All section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for all periods relevant to this proceeding.)

The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. Petitioner Mary E. Bryant (petitioner) and her deceased husband filed joint income tax returns for the years at issue. Respondent issued final partnership administrative adjustments with respect to partnerships in which petitioner's deceased husband was a partner. Final decisions with respect to the partnership items having been entered, respondent issued computational adjustments to the various partners. See sec. 6231(a)(6).

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition with this Court. The petition does not contest the underlying tax liability, but instead raises only petitioner's claim that she is entitled to relief from liability as an innocent spouse pursuant to section 6013(e). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner. Petitioner does not contend that respondent issued a notice of deficiency upon which petitioners could base a petition, but urges the Court to accept jurisdiction in this case because she would otherwise have no prepayment forum for her innocent spouse claim.

Petitioner asserts that there is a substantial understatement of tax from her deceased husband's investment in partnerships, that she did not know of or have reason to know of the understatement, and that it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the tax liability. Petitioner also alleges that she did not receive any assets from her husband's estate, but only inherited the substantial tax liability.

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner [Dec. 42,414], 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In order for the Court to have jurisdiction in a case, respondent must issue a valid notice of deficiency and the taxpayer must then file a petition within the statutorily prescribed period. Sec. 6213. In the instant case, respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency to petitioner. Rather, petitioner received a computational adjustment which cannot form the basis of a deficiency proceeding in this Court. Sec. 6230(a)(1); N.C.F. Energy Partners v. Commissioner [Dec. 44,257], 89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987). Therefore, because one of the requirements of our jurisdiction is absent (i.e., a notice of deficiency), respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be granted.

An appropriate order will be entered.

Комментарии

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

Имя *

Комментарий *    

Добавить комментарий