                        T.C. Memo. 1997-365



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                STANLEY I. CAPLAN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 14899-94.                     Filed August 11, 1997.



     Stanley I. Caplan, pro se.

     Louise R. Forbes, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax of $24,022 and additions to

tax, pursuant to sections 6651(a) and 6654(a), of $6,003 and

$1,380.82, respectively.    Unless otherwise indicated, all section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
                               - 2 -

years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.    At the time the petition was

filed, petitioner resided in Barre, Massachusetts.

     Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for his

1991 tax year.   He was subsequently audited and, on August 13,

1994, respondent issued a notice determining deficiencies based

on unreported income.   Additions to tax were also determined.

The petition was filed on August 18, 1994.

     A trial was held on April 28, 1997, in Boston,

Massachusetts.   At trial, respondent conceded that there was no

deficiency in petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax and that no

additions to tax were due.   Petitioner did not dispute

respondent's concession, but contends that he should be allowed

to file a joint return with his ex-wife, Patricia.    Patricia, for

her 1991 tax year, had filed a Federal income tax return electing

married filing separately status.    Petitioner and Patricia

obtained a decree of divorce providing that they would file a

joint return for the 1991 tax year and that petitioner would be

entitled to receive the expected refund.    According to

petitioner, Patricia refused to file the joint return when the

Internal Revenue Service asserted deficiencies against him.    Now

that respondent has conceded that no deficiencies exist, however,

petitioner believes Patricia will agree to file a joint return.

Petitioner contends that if he and Patricia are allowed to file

jointly, they will be entitled to a refund.    Respondent contends
                                - 3 -

that petitioner is not entitled to file a joint return, because

such an election would be untimely.     At the time of trial,

petitioner and his wife had not filed a joint return.

     Petitioner's request is, essentially, a request for a

declaratory judgment that he is entitled to file a joint return

in the future.   See 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Declaratory Judgments, sec.

1, at 670 (1988) (stating that a declaratory judgment is a

judgment declaring the rights and duties, or the status, of the

parties in advance of a planned act or event and citing numerous

cases).   The Tax Court, with the exception of certain instances

specifically prescribed by statute, does not possess jurisdiction

over requests for declaratory judgment.     See secs. 7428 (relating

to qualification of organizations as tax-exempt), 7476 (relating

to qualification of certain retirement plans), 7478 (relating to

the tax status of municipal bonds); Rules 13(a),(b) and 210(c).

Petitioner's request does not fall within any statute conferring

jurisdiction upon this Court.    As a result, we conclude that we

lack jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner may, in the

future, file a joint return.    We note, however, that section

6013(b)(2)(C) provides that a taxpayer may not make an election

to file a joint return after either spouse files a timely

petition with this Court.

     All other arguments made by the parties are either

irrelevant or without merit.
                         - 4 -

To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concessions,


                                      Decision will be entered

                                 for petitioner.
