DocketNumber: Docket No. 971-10
Judges: FOLEY
Filed Date: 5/21/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Decision will be entered under
FOLEY,
In 2006 petitioner retired from his career as an engineer and received taxable pension income. With the assistance of a professional tax adviser, petitioner reported the pension income on his Federal income tax return relating to 2006 (2006 return).
In *145 2007 petitioner received pension income and Social Security payments (collectively, retirement income) and was sent quarterly pension benefit statements, which indicated amounts withheld. In 2008 petitioner hired a different professional tax adviser, Bradley E. Henschel, to prepare his Federal income tax return relating to 2007 (original 2007 return) and informed Mr. Henschel that he had not yet received Forms 1099 relating to his retirement income. Uncertain of how much of his retirement income was taxable, petitioner provided Mr. Henschel with the quarterly pension benefit statements. Mr. Henschel determined that none of petitioner's retirement income was taxable.
On April 15, 2008, petitioner timely filed his original 2007 return, on which he reported zero taxable income, withheld taxes of $6,000 relating to his pension, and a $6,000 overpayment. At the time petitioner filed his original 2007 return, he had not yet received Forms 1099 relating to his retirement income. Respondent processed the original 2007 return, allowed the $6,000 overpayment, and applied this amount to petitioner's outstanding tax liability relating to 1983. *146 original 2007 return. In response to respondent's audit petitioner prepared an amended Federal income tax return relating to 2007 (amended 2007 return) on which he reported as taxable $52,681 of pension income and $5,847 of Social Security benefits. Respondent received the amended 2007 return on June 26, 2009, but did not process it.
On October 19, 2009, respondent sent petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency relating to the original 2007 return. In the notice, respondent determined that petitioner's retirement income was taxable and that he was liable for an accuracy-related penalty. Respondent also determined that petitioner was required to report as taxable the same amount of retirement income (i.e., $52,681 of pension income and $5,847 of Social Security benefits) that he reported on his amended 2007 return. On January 12, 2010, petitioner, while residing in Inglewood, California, filed his petition with the Court.
Petitioner concedes that $52,681 of pension income and $5,847 of Social Security benefits are taxable. *147 He does, however, advance other contentions as to why we should not sustain respondent's deficiency determination.
Petitioner contends that it was improper for respondent to apply the overpayment claimed on his original 2007 return to a prior year tax liability. *148 The Tax Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.
Petitioner further contends that respondent was required to treat his amended 2007 return as superseding the original 2007 return. We disagree. Taxpayers are permitted to submit amended returns, but the Commissioner is "not statutorily required to * * * [accept an amended return], or to treat an amended return as superseding an original return."
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
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. Respondent also determined that petitioner was entitled to a $300 economic stimulus credit, which respondent applied to his tax liability relating to 1983.↩
3. Pursuant to
4. Respondent bears, and has met, the burden of production relating to this penalty.