- 3 -
detailing respondent's wage adjustments for “4 employees” (1994)
and “6 employees” (1995) and included calculations of the amounts
to be assessed.
After the Court granted respondent's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to the Amounts of
Employment Taxes Proposed for Assessment by the Respondent,
respondent's Answer was filed. Attached to the Answer was a list
of individuals that respondent determined should be reclassified
as employees of petitioner. Petitioner then filed its motion,
arguing that the notice is invalid because the list of
individuals was not part of the notice of determination sent to
petitioner in March 1998. Petitioner asserts: "The shortcoming
is tantamount to failure to specify the amount of the determined
deficiency anywhere in a Notice of Deficiency in a case under
I.R.C. Section 6212."
Respondent argues that the standard to be applied to a
notice of determination is whether it advises the taxpayer that
respondent has determined that, for specified time periods, some
or all of its workers are to be reclassified as employees and
that the notice in this case meets that standard. Respondent
acknowledges that petitioner's analogy between the notice of
determination and a notice of deficiency is reasonable inasmuch
as the form of neither is prescribed by statute. Respondent
contends, however, that petitioner overreaches the scope of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011