James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          dispute the determination for 1994 they had 30 days to "file a              
          complaint in the appropriate United States District Court".                 
          Petitioners were issued a separate notice of determination for              
          tax years 1995 through 1997.  The notice of determination for               
          those years advised them that if they wanted to dispute the                 
          determination, "you must file a petition with the United States             
          Tax Court within 30 days from the date of this letter."                     
               Petitioners filed with the Court a petition and an amended             
          petition for redetermination of proposed collection action with             
          respect to both the notice for 1994 as well as the one for 1995             
          through 1997.                                                               
               Respondent contends in the motion to dismiss that the                  
          Court's jurisdiction to review administrative determinations                
          respecting collection matters is limited to cases where the                 
          underlying tax liability is of a kind within the Court's normal             
          deficiency jurisdiction.  Respondent asserts that the Court lacks           
          jurisdiction over the FICA taxes at issue in this case, and                 
          therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction to review respondent's               
          administrative determination to proceed with collection against             
          petitioners.  Petitioners filed papers in opposition to                     
          respondent's motion to dismiss.                                             
               This matter was called for hearing at the Court's trial                
          session in Hartford, Connecticut.  Counsel for respondent                   
          appeared at the hearing and argued in support of the motion to              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011