Tax Court in Brief | Merida Ortiz v. Comm’r | Section 6428B, ITINs, and the Recovery Rebate Credit

Merida Ortiz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-81 | September 3, 2026 | Guider, J. | Docket No. 13093-25

Short Summary

Ivan Merida Ortiz claimed the $1,400 recovery rebate credit for 2021 and used an individual taxpayer identification number on his return. The IRS disallowed the credit and issued a notice of deficiency for $1,400. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, and Judge Guider granted it.

An ITIN is not a Social Security number, and section 6428B requires a Social Security number. The Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s separate request for a 2020 economic impact payment, because the notice of deficiency covered only 2021.

Key Issues

Does an ITIN satisfy the “valid identification number” requirement in section 6428B(e)(2)? And can the Court reach a taxpayer’s claim for a different year not covered by the notice of deficiency?

Primary Holdings

An ITIN is not a valid identification number for purposes of section 6428B, so the section 6428B(b)(1) amount is treated as zero and the petitioner is not entitled to the 2021 credit. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim for the 2020 taxable year. The Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.

Key Points of Law

Rule 120(a) lets a party move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings close, and the motion must rest solely on the allegations and information in the pleadings rather than on outside matters. The movant must show that the pleadings raise no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 created the 2021 recovery rebate credit at section 6428B—$1,400, or $2,800 on a joint return, plus $1,400 for each dependent. Section 6428B(e)(2)(A) provides that on a return other than a joint return, the section 6428B(b)(1) amount is treated as being zero unless the taxpayer includes his valid identification number on the return. Section 6428B(e)(2)(D)(i) defines a valid identification number as a Social Security number issued by the Social Security Administration on or before the return’s due date.

The regulations close the loop. Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(d)(3)(i) defines an ITIN as a taxpayer identifying number issued to an alien individual by the IRS for use in connection with title 26 filing requirements, and says in terms that the ITIN does not refer to a Social Security number. Subparagraph (4) adds that a person who has, or is entitled to, a Social Security number will not be issued an ITIN. So possession of an ITIN itself proves the taxpayer had no valid identification number. The document he offered to establish eligibility established the opposite.

The petitioner argued that he supplied a “taxpayer identification number” and therefore met the requirement. The Court answered that the statute asks for a particular kind of taxpayer identification number and names it.

On the 2020 request, the Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may act only where a statute authorizes it. Deficiency jurisdiction reaches only the taxable years included in the notice of deficiency. The Court’s overpayment jurisdiction under section 6512(b) is limited to the same years for which it issued a notice and received a timely petition. The notice here covered 2021 alone.

Insight

Five years on, pandemic-era credits are still generating deficiency cases, and many involve the identification-number rules. The rule in section 6428B differs from the one in section 6428 for the first round of payments, and it differs again for dependents, so check the year and the subsection before telling a client the credit is available. The 2021 credit requires a Social Security number issued by the return due date—not by the time the claim is made, and not by the time the Court hears the case.

The jurisdictional half of the opinion is the part that will repeat. A petitioner who is owed something for an earlier year cannot get it in a case built on a later year’s notice. The remedy for an unreceived 2020 payment runs through a refund claim and, if denied, a refund suit—a different forum with different deadlines. Raising it in a 2021 deficiency case only delays the answer.

Freeman Law’s Tax Court litigation attorneys handle deficiency cases and refund claims alike, and our Tax Court litigation FAQs explain what the Court can and cannot decide. Prior weeks are collected at The Tax Court in Brief, and the full opinion is available from CourtListener.

The information contained in this post is general in nature, is provided for informational and educational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The law is fact-specific and subject to change. Consult qualified counsel regarding your particular circumstances.