- 4 -
it, petitioner contends that (1) respondent erroneously
characterized the workers as employees, (2) respondent’s
determination of worker classification is barred by “all relevant
sections of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to the
limitations on assessment and collection”,5 and (3) respondent
erroneously determined that petitioner’s failure to pay
employment taxes relating to the workers was due to fraud.6
In respondent’s answer to the petition, respondent argues
that his determination is not time barred because the general
4(...continued)
a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Anne Neely on
the grounds that the notice of determination was not issued to
her and petitioner, but rather to petitioner alone. We granted
respondent’s motion.
5 On Aug. 4, 1992, petitioner filed Forms 941, Employer’s
Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for quarters ending Mar. 31, 1992,
and June 30, 1992. On Oct. 31, 1992, and Jan. 31, 1993,
petitioner filed Forms 941 for quarters ending Sept. 30, 1992,
and Dec. 31, 1992, respectively. Lastly, on Mar. 1, 1993,
petitioner filed Form 940-EZ, Employer’s Annual Federal
Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return, for calendar year 1992.
Respondent does not dispute that the above-mentioned returns were
filed more than 3 years prior to the issuance of the notice of
determination in this case.
6 Petitioner also disputed the amounts of employment taxes
and the amounts of related penalties that were set forth in the
notice of determination. On Oct. 28, 1998, respondent filed a
motion to dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction as to the
amounts of employment taxes and as to the amounts of related
penalties. The motion was scheduled for hearing, but following
the issuance of our opinion in Henry Randolph Consulting v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1 (1999), the parties submitted a joint
report recommending that respondent’s motion be granted without a
hearing. The Court then granted respondent’s motion and
dismissed the case in part for lack of jurisdiction over the
amounts of employment taxes and the amounts of related penalties
proposed by respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011