T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-27
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DEMPSIE WORD, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 22104-05S. Filed March 11, 2008.
Dempsie Word, pro se.
G. Chad Barton, for respondent.
VASQUEZ, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
- 2 -
this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case. After concessions by the parties, the issue for decision
is whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether
petitioner is liable for interest on the amount of tax owed.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed the
petition, petitioner resided in Arkansas.
Petitioner, Dempsie Word, and his then wife Mae E. Word
timely filed a joint income tax return for 1996. The return
reflected tax due of zero, income tax withholding of $1,052, an
earned income credit of $2,447, and an overpayment of $3,499.
On March 31, 1997, respondent issued petitioner and Mae E.
Word a refund of $3,499. On January 13, 1999, respondent issued
petitioner and Mae E. Word a notice of deficiency for 1996
determining a deficiency in income tax of $3,983.
On July 15, 2004, petitioner timely filed a Form 8857,
Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, for 1996. Respondent issued
a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from
Joint and Several Liability under Section 6015 granting
petitioner partial relief pursuant to section 6015(c).
Petitioner filed his petition in response to the notice.
Petitioner requested relief of $3,983 but was granted relief of
- 3 -
only $1,350, leaving a remaining tax of $2,633. The remaining
amount does not include the interest and penalties that had been
assessed or accrued.
The deficiency of $3,983 is attributable to a disallowed
earned income credit of $2,447, a $1,536 deficiency attributable
to Mae E. Word’s unreported wages of $4,960, unreported gambling
income of $3,400, and petitioner’s unreported pension income of
$1,149. The parties agree that petitioner is entitled to relief
of only $1,350 pursuant to section 6015(c). After application of
section 6015(c), petitioner is liable for $2,404 in income tax
for 1996.2 Further, after applying section 6015(c), respondent
has conceded that there is no addition to tax pursuant to section
6651(a)(2).
Discussion
In general, spouses filing joint Federal income tax returns
are jointly and severally liable for all taxes due. Sec.
6013(d)(3). Under certain circumstances, however, section 6015
provides relief from this general rule. Respondent has granted
partial relief pursuant to section 6015(c). Petitioner remains
liable for the tax attributable to the disallowed earned income
credit and the unreported pension income and for the interest
thereon. See Weiler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-255.
2
Petitioner had $229 of income tax withheld from his
pension.
- 4 -
Petitioner contends that the interest attributable to the
$2,404 tax he owes should be abated. Petitioner’s claim is broad
enough to be considered a request for interest abatement pursuant
to section 6404.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may
exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The question of
the Court’s jurisdiction is fundamental and must be addressed
when raised by a party or on the Court’s own motion. Id. at 530.
Consistent with section 6404(h)(1), the Court’s jurisdiction
over interest abatement cases depends on a valid notice of final
determination and a timely filed petition for review. See Rule
280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134 (1999). But cf.
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000). The Court
does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Commissioner’s
failure to abate interest under section 6404 constitutes an abuse
of discretion unless or until the Commissioner has made a “final
determination” not to abate interest. Bourekis v. Commissioner,
110 T.C. 20, 25-26 (1998); Sigel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-138. The Court does not have jurisdiction regardless of
whether the innocent spouse claim was raised in a “stand-alone”
case or in a deficiency proceeding.
Petitioner did not submit a request for interest abatement,
and respondent did not make a “determination” not to abate
- 5 -
interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the Court lacks
jurisdiction pursuant to section 6404(h) to decide this issue.
In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered
all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not
mentioned above, we conclude they are irrelevant or without
merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.