                          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.
