T.C. Memo. 1997-365
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
STANLEY I. CAPLAN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 14899-94. Filed August 11, 1997.
Stanley I. Caplan, pro se.
Louise R. Forbes, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax of $24,022 and additions to
tax, pursuant to sections 6651(a) and 6654(a), of $6,003 and
$1,380.82, respectively. Unless otherwise indicated, all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
- 2 -
years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure. At the time the petition was
filed, petitioner resided in Barre, Massachusetts.
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for his
1991 tax year. He was subsequently audited and, on August 13,
1994, respondent issued a notice determining deficiencies based
on unreported income. Additions to tax were also determined.
The petition was filed on August 18, 1994.
A trial was held on April 28, 1997, in Boston,
Massachusetts. At trial, respondent conceded that there was no
deficiency in petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax and that no
additions to tax were due. Petitioner did not dispute
respondent's concession, but contends that he should be allowed
to file a joint return with his ex-wife, Patricia. Patricia, for
her 1991 tax year, had filed a Federal income tax return electing
married filing separately status. Petitioner and Patricia
obtained a decree of divorce providing that they would file a
joint return for the 1991 tax year and that petitioner would be
entitled to receive the expected refund. According to
petitioner, Patricia refused to file the joint return when the
Internal Revenue Service asserted deficiencies against him. Now
that respondent has conceded that no deficiencies exist, however,
petitioner believes Patricia will agree to file a joint return.
Petitioner contends that if he and Patricia are allowed to file
jointly, they will be entitled to a refund. Respondent contends
- 3 -
that petitioner is not entitled to file a joint return, because
such an election would be untimely. At the time of trial,
petitioner and his wife had not filed a joint return.
Petitioner's request is, essentially, a request for a
declaratory judgment that he is entitled to file a joint return
in the future. See 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Declaratory Judgments, sec.
1, at 670 (1988) (stating that a declaratory judgment is a
judgment declaring the rights and duties, or the status, of the
parties in advance of a planned act or event and citing numerous
cases). The Tax Court, with the exception of certain instances
specifically prescribed by statute, does not possess jurisdiction
over requests for declaratory judgment. See secs. 7428 (relating
to qualification of organizations as tax-exempt), 7476 (relating
to qualification of certain retirement plans), 7478 (relating to
the tax status of municipal bonds); Rules 13(a),(b) and 210(c).
Petitioner's request does not fall within any statute conferring
jurisdiction upon this Court. As a result, we conclude that we
lack jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner may, in the
future, file a joint return. We note, however, that section
6013(b)(2)(C) provides that a taxpayer may not make an election
to file a joint return after either spouse files a timely
petition with this Court.
All other arguments made by the parties are either
irrelevant or without merit.
- 4 -
To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concessions,
Decision will be entered
for petitioner.