                        T.C. Memo. 2011-221



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            THOR AND MARILYN SOLBERG, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15208-10.               Filed September 12, 2011.



     Thor and Marilyn Solberg, pro sese.

     Christopher A. Pavilonis, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GOEKE, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $981 in

petitioners’ 2005 Federal income tax.   After a concession,1 the

sole issue to be decided is whether this Court has jurisdiction

to find an overpayment of $48,881 for the deficiency year based


     1
      Respondent concedes the $981 deficiency on the basis of a
computational math error for the 2005 taxable year.
                                - 2 -

on alleged overpayments from prior years.    As decided

hereinafter, we do not have jurisdiction.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

     At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in

Florida.    Petitioners maintain that they are entitled to a tax

refund based on an overpayment for 2005 generated by the

carryforward of overpayments from 2004 and other years before

2005.    Respondent claims pursuant to section 6214(b)2 that this

Court lacks jurisdiction to determine an overpayment for any year

besides the year properly at issue, which is 2005.    Respondent

argues further that this Court cannot go back and redetermine the

potential refunds that petitioners claim they are entitled to for

any year except 2005.    Determination of an overpayment for 2005

would necessitate the determination of overpayments for 2004 and

other prior years, and respondent claims this to be outside of

the Court’s jurisdiction.

                               OPINION

     This Court is one of limited jurisdiction, and it may

exercise its jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

statute.    Sec. 7442; see GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114

T.C. 519, 521 (2000).    Our jurisdiction to redetermine the amount



     2
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended.
                               - 3 -

of a deficiency is premised on the issuance of a valid notice of

deficiency followed by a timely filing of a petition.     Id.   Once

validly exercised, our “jurisdiction extends to the entire

subject matter of the correct tax for the taxable year”, Naftel

v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 533 (1985), including the

taxpayer’s claim of an overpayment of tax, see sec. 6512(b)(1).

     In determining the correct tax for the taxable year, section

6214(b) allows us to “consider such facts with relation to the

taxes for other years * * * as may be necessary” but explicitly

deprives us of “jurisdiction to determine whether or not the tax

for any other year * * * has been overpaid or underpaid”.

     We have previously construed section 6214(b) as granting us

the authority for “computing, as distinguished from

‘determining,’ the correct tax liability for a year not in issue

when such a computation is necessary to a determination of the

correct tax liability for a year that has been placed in issue.”

Lone Manor Farms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 436, 440 (1974),

affd. without published opinion 510 F.2d 970 (3d Cir. 1975).

     Petitioners have asked us to do much more than merely

compute the correct tax liability for a nondeficiency year.

Petitioners exhort us to determine an overpayment for the

deficiency year based on crediting overpayments from

nondeficiency years to 2005.   We read section 6214(b) as

preventing us from doing so.   See Commissioner v. Gooch Milling &
                                 - 4 -

Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-421 (1943); Porter v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-154.

     Petitioners have not been issued a notice of deficiency of

which the Court is aware for tax year 2004 or any of the prior

years.   The only tax year before the Court is 2005.        Petitioners

make no argument about the notice of deficiency at issue.        This

Court lacks jurisdiction to make the determinations that are

prerequisites for ruling favorably on petitioners’ claim for an

overpayment for 2005.

     The Court has considered all of petitioners’ contentions,

arguments, requests, and statements.       To the extent not discussed

herein, we conclude that they are meritless, moot, or irrelevant.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An appropriate decision

                                         will be entered.
