                          T.C. Memo. 1998-320



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            NEWBY'S PLASTERING, INC., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 26799-96.                  Filed September 8, 1998.



     Helen L. Simpson, for petitioner.

     Kay Hill, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     LARO, Judge:     Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine

respondent's determination of the following additions to its 1989

Federal income tax:    A $37,270 addition under section 6651(a)(1),

a $42,954 addition under section 6651(a)(2), and a $10,333

addition under section 6655.    We decide sua sponte whether we
                                - 2 -


have jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner is liable for

these additions to tax.   We hold we do not.

     Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year at issue.   Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.    Petitioner's principal

place of business was in Anchorage, Alaska, when it petitioned

the Court.

                             Background

     Petitioner filed a 1989 Federal income tax return on May 18,

1993.   On September 10, 1996, respondent issued petitioner a

notice of deficiency reflecting a determination that petitioner

was liable for the three additions to tax mentioned above.

Respondent did not determine, and the notice of deficiency did

not assert, that petitioner had a deficiency in its 1989 Federal

income tax.

     Petitioner timely petitioned the Court with respect to the

notice of deficiency, alleging in the petition that it was not

liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent.    The

petition did not allege, and petitioner does not assert in this

proceeding, that it overpaid its 1989 Federal income tax.

                             Discussion

     This Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may

exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

Congress.    Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).    We
                               - 3 -


acquire jurisdiction when the Commissioner issues to a taxpayer a

notice of deficiency that reflects a "deficiency in respect of

any tax imposed by subtitle A or B", section 6212(a), and the

taxpayer timely petitions this Court to redetermine that

deficiency.   Sec. 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Keeton v. Commissioner,

74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980); Estate of Moffat v. Commissioner,

46 T.C. 499 (1966).

     In the instant case, respondent has not determined a

"deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitle A or B".

Sec. 6212(a).   Respondent has determined only that petitioner is

liable for the three additions to tax mentioned above.    Pursuant

to section 6665, none of these additions to tax is treated as a

tax that is imposed by subtitle A or B.   As stated in section

6665:

     SEC. 6665. APPLICABLE RULES

          (a) Additions Treated as Tax.--Except as otherwise
     provided in this title--

               (1) the additions to the tax, additional
          amounts, and penalties provided by this
          chapter shall be paid upon notice and demand
          and shall be assessed, collected, and paid in
          the same manner as taxes; and

               (2) any reference in this title to "tax"
          imposed by this title shall be deemed also to
          refer to the additions to the tax, additional
          amounts, and penalties provided by this
          chapter.

          (b) Procedure for Assessing Certain Additions to
     Tax.--For purposes of subchapter B of chapter 63
     (relating to deficiency procedures for income, estate,
                              - 4 -


     gift, and certain excise taxes), subsection (a) shall
     not apply to any addition to tax under section 6651,
     6654, or 6655; except that it shall apply--

               (1) in the case of an addition
          described in section 6651, to that portion of
          such addition which is attributable to a
          deficiency in tax described in section 6211;
          or

               (2) to an addition described in section
          6654 or 6655, if no return is filed for the
          taxable year.

     Because respondent has not determined a deficiency in tax,

we hold that we lack jurisdiction to decide this case.    To

reflect the foregoing,

                                           An appropriate order

                                      of dismissal for lack of

                                      jurisdiction will be entered.
