- 5 -
excluded from the computation of earned income. Petitioner filed
a supplemental memorandum repeating his prior arguments.
Discussion
1. Jurisdiction
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon
the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. See Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93
T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,
147 (1988).
The initial question in this case is whether respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax within
the meaning of section 6211. The term “deficiency” is generally
defined in section 6211(a) as the amount by which the tax imposed
by subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 of the Internal
Revenue Code exceeds the excess of the sum of the amount shown as
the tax by the taxpayer upon his return plus the amounts
previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a
deficiency, over the amount of rebates made. The deficiency that
respondent determined in this case, based upon the disallowance
of an earned income credit under section 32, does not fit neatly
within the confines of this definition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011