T.C. Memo. 2008-170
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WILLIAM R. AND LENORE C. LARSEN, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5631-06. Filed July 17, 2008.
William R. and Lenore C. Larsen, pro sese.
Diane L. Worland, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioners’ Federal income taxes of $3,784 and $7,216 for 2002
and 2003, respectively. Petitioners claim entitlement to
dependency exemptions and child tax credits claimed on their
joint Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (tax
returns). In addition, petitioners seek relief in the nature of
- 2 -
a writ of mandamus or a court order compelling respondent to
issue individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) to
petitioners’ five minor children.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulation
of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by
this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners
were residents of Indiana.
Petitioners filed joint tax returns for 2002 and 2003
claiming dependency exemptions and child tax credits for their
five minor children. Respondent disallowed the exemptions and
credits in the notice of deficiency because petitioners did not
provide Social Security numbers (SSNs) for their five children on
the tax returns. Though they are eligible as U.S. citizens,
petitioners’ children have not applied for SSNs for personal
religious reasons. Petitioners have sought the issuance of ITINs
for their children in lieu of SSNs for a number of years; and
now, in addition to seeking entitlement to the exemptions and
credits, petitioners request relief from this Court through a
writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of ITINs for the
children.
At trial respondent conceded the claimed dependency
exemptions and child tax credits, and petitioners accepted these
concessions. Therefore, the only issue before us is whether
- 3 -
petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus or a court order
compelling respondent to issue petitioners’ children ITINs.
OPINION
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, having only
such jurisdiction as provided by Congress. See sec. 7442; see
also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985);
Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without
published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). With exceptions
not germane here, in deficiency cases this Court’s jurisdiction
is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income
taxes, estate and gift taxes, and certain specified excise taxes
that are subject to deficiency procedures. See secs. 6214, 7442;
see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, supra at 562; Judd v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 653 (1980); Loadholt Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-349.
Pursuant to section 6214(a), our jurisdiction is limited to
redetermining the correct amount of the deficiency determined by
respondent. Neither section 6214 nor any other statute provides
this Court an independent jurisdictional basis to review the
Internal Revenue Service’s refusal to issue an ITIN if the
refusal is irrelevant to the determination of a deficiency.
Because petitioners accepted respondent’s concession of the
dependency exemptions and child tax credits, it is unnecessary to
reach the question of whether petitioners’ children are entitled
- 4 -
to ITINs, and the Court generally does not decide issues that are
moot. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 13 (2006);
LTV Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 589, 594-595 (1975); Bullock
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-6, affd. 206 Fed. Appx. 164 (3d
Cir. 2006). Therefore, we need not determine petitioners’
childrens’ entitlement to ITINs as doing so would function
primarily as an advisory opinion for future tax years.
Petitioners’ final request is for a writ of mandamus to
compel the issuance of ITINs to their five minor children.
However, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1361 (2000) grants District Courts
original jurisdiction “of any action in the nature of mandamus to
compel an officer or employee of the United States or agency
thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Accordingly,
we are without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
compelling respondent to issue ITINs to petitioners’ children.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for petitioners as to the
deficiencies.