- 2 -
determined over which the Court has jurisdiction and that no
notice of deficiency has been sent to petitioner. Petitioner
objects to respondent’s motion but does not state any reason or
authority which would give us jurisdiction.
Background
Petitioner petitioned this Court to redetermine a deficiency
of $31,727 in his 1998 Federal income tax and additions thereto
of $4,729.27, $2,101.90, and $899,97 under sections 6651(a)(1),
6651(a)(2), and 6654(a), respectively. Petitioner resided in
Jacksboro, Tennessee, when his petition was filed with the Court.
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for
1997. On or about October 16, 2001, petitioner requested a
refund for 1997 in the amount of $17,607. Respondent denied this
request because, he determined, it was outside of the statutory
period to file for a refund. Respondent has not mailed a notice
of deficiency to petitioner with respect to 1997. Petitioner
alleges that respondent should have determined an overpayment in
petitioner’s Federal income tax return for 1997 before
calculating a deficiency for 1998, in order to net the 1998
deficiency against the 1997 overpayment.
Discussion
The party requesting that the Court decide an issue bears
the burden of proving that we have the requisite jurisdiction to
decide that issue. See Cassell v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 313,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011