A taxpayer who filed a 2021 return using an ITIN instead of a Social Security number is not entitled to the $1,400 economic recovery rebate credit since section 6428B clearly mandates the use of a Social Security number.
Holding
The Tax Court ruled that Ivan Merida Ortiz was not entitled to the $1,400 economic recovery rebate credit for 2021 since he had provided an individual taxpayer identification number or ITIN instead of the Social Security number required under §6428B. Furthermore, the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider his separate claim concerning recovery rebate payments for 2020 as the notice of deficiency related only to 2021.
Why It Matters
Section 6428B requires a Social Security number. An ITIN may serve as a taxpayer identification number for federal filing purposes, but it does not satisfy the identification requirement Congress imposed for the 2021 recovery rebate credit.
The decision applies the statute as written. It does not announce a new eligibility rule or expand IRS authority. Section 6428B itself defines the identification number required to claim the credit.
The 2020 claim illustrates a recurring problem with Tax Court jurisdiction. A taxpayer generally cannot use a deficiency case involving one year to obtain relief for another year that the notice of deficiency did not place before the Court.
Practitioners should not treat taxpayer identification numbers as interchangeable. Eligibility for a particular credit depends on the identification standard contained in the statute governing that credit.
Key Facts
Ivan Merida Ortiz got an ITIN from the IRS prior to 2021.
He used that ITIN when filing his 2021 federal income tax return and claimed a Economic Recovery Rebate Credit of $1,400 under §6428B.
The credit was rejected by the IRS since Ortiz had not given the identification number required by law. On July 24, 2025, the IRS sent out a statutory notice of deficiency stating that there was a deficiency of $1,400 for the year 2021.
Ortiz promptly filed a petition with the Tax Court and requested that the court release the recovery rebate payments he said he was entitled to for 2020.
The IRS asked for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Tax Court Rule 120(a), on the ground that Ortiz's use of an ITIN had made him legally ineligible for the 2021 credit.
Statutory and regulatory framework
Congress created the 2021 economic recovery rebate credit through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and codified it in §6428B.
Section 6428B generally provided a $1,400 credit for an eligible individual, $2,800 for taxpayers filing jointly, and an additional $1,400 for each qualifying dependent.
For a return other than a joint return, §6428B(e)(2)(A) treats the basic credit amount as zero unless the taxpayer includes a valid identification number on the return.
Section 6428B(e)(2)(D)(i) defines a valid identification number for this purpose as a Social Security number issued by the Social Security Administration on or before the filing deadline.
Treas. Reg. §301.6109-1(d)(3)(i) defines an ITIN as a taxpayer identification number that the IRS issues to an alien individual for federal tax filing purposes. The regulation expressly distinguishes an ITIN from a Social Security number.
Treas. Reg. §301.6109-1(d)(4) also bars the IRS from issuing an ITIN to a person who has or qualifies for a Social Security number.
Tax Court Rule 120(a) permits judgment on the pleadings when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Arguments
Taxpayer argued:
He satisfied the identification requirement by including a taxpayer identification number on his 2021 return.
His ITIN should qualify as the identification number required for the economic recovery rebate credit.
He also sought recovery rebate amounts that he claimed he should have received for 2020.
Government argued:
Section 6428B requires a Social Security number, not any taxpayer identification number.
Ortiz reported an ITIN on his return.
An ITIN does not meet the statutory definition of a valid identification number under §6428B.
Because the pleadings established the relevant facts, the IRS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
Section 6428B conditions the $1,400 credit on the taxpayer providing a valid identification number.
Congress defined that term specifically for the credit. The statute requires a Social Security number issued by the Social Security Administration within the statutory deadline.
Ortiz provided an ITIN issued by the IRS rather than a Social Security number.
Treasury regulations expressly state that an ITIN is not a Social Security number.
The rules governing ITIN issuance further supported that distinction. The IRS does not issue an ITIN to someone who has or qualifies for a Social Security number.
Because Ortiz did not provide the identification number required by §6428B, §6428B(e)(2)(A) reduced his allowable basic credit amount to zero. The pleadings left no factual dispute that could change that result.
The 2020 recovery rebate claim
Ortiz also asked the Tax Court to release an economic impact payment for 2020 that he claimed he had not received. That request implicated the recovery rebate provisions in §§6428 and 6428A.
The Court did not address whether Ortiz qualified for a 2020 payment. It lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim.
The notice of deficiency underlying the case covered only 2021. The Tax Court exercises only the jurisdiction Congress grants it, and its deficiency jurisdiction generally covers only the tax years identified in a notice of deficiency and presented to the Court through a timely petition.
The same limitation applies to the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction under §6512(b). Because the IRS had not issued Ortiz a notice of deficiency for 2020 in this case, the Court could not adjudicate his claim for a 2020 recovery rebate.
Result
The Tax Court granted the IRS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered a decision for the Commissioner.
The Takeaway
The ITIN issue is a narrow application of §6428B and does not change the law governing recovery rebate credits. The more reusable procedural point is jurisdictional: practitioners cannot assume that placing a case one year before the Tax Court gives the Court authority to resolve claims arising from another year.
List of Citations
§6213(a): Authorizes a taxpayer to petition the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency after the IRS issues a notice of deficiency.
§6428B: Establishes the 2021 economic recovery rebate credit.
§6428B(b): Sets the general amount of the 2021 credit.
§6428B(e)(2)(A): Treats the basic credit amount as zero when the taxpayer fails to provide a valid identification number.
§6428B(e)(2)(D)(i): Defines a valid identification number for the taxpayer as a Social Security number issued within the statutory deadline.
§§6428 and 6428A: Govern earlier recovery rebate credits associated with 2020 economic impact payments.
§6512(b): Governs the Tax Court’s limited authority to determine overpayments in deficiency proceedings.
Treas. Reg. §301.6109-1(d)(3)(i): Defines an ITIN and distinguishes it from a Social Security number.
Treas. Reg. §301.6109-1(d)(4): Provides that an individual who has or qualifies for a Social Security number will not receive an ITIN.
Tax Court Rule 120(a): Governs motions for judgment on the pleadings.
Tax Court Rule 142(a): Generally places the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
Ortiz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo., filed September 3, 2026: Holds that an ITIN does not satisfy §6428B’s Social Security number requirement for the 2021 economic recovery rebate credit.
Rowen v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 101 (2021): Addresses the treatment of allegations when ruling on a motion based on the pleadings.
Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523 (2000): States the standard for judgment on the pleadings.
Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984): Supports judgment on the pleadings when no genuine issue of material fact remains.
Rickard v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 188 (1987): Addresses the taxpayer’s burden to establish entitlement to tax deductions and credits.
Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488 (1940): Supports the rule that deductions depend on statutory authorization.
Williams v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 54 (2008): Explains the limits of the Tax Court’s statutory jurisdiction.
Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61 (1976): States that the Tax Court may exercise only jurisdiction granted by statute.
Hillenbrand v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-303: Explains that deficiency jurisdiction is limited to tax years included in the notice of deficiency.
Menard, Inc. v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 54 (2008): Explains the limits of the Tax Court’s overpayment jurisdiction.