- 6 -
trial therefore was whether respondent’s determination of worker
classification was barred by expiration of the 3-year period of
limitations set forth in section 6501(a) or whether the period of
limitations remained open pursuant to section 6501(c) on account
of petitioner’s fraudulent conduct.
At commencement of trial, the Court raised the issue of
whether we had jurisdiction to decide whether a taxpayer in a
worker classification case had committed fraud for purposes of
determining whether the section 6501(c) exception to the general
3-year period of limitations on assessment applied. At that
time, both parties agreed that the Court possessed jurisdiction
to decide such issue. Following trial, the Court held the
conventional posttrial briefing in abeyance and ordered the
parties to identify by memoranda the legal authority which
establishes the jurisdiction of the Court to address matters
relating to the period of limitations on assessment in a worker
classification case brought under section 7436.
Discussion
It is well settled that this Court can proceed in a case
only if we have jurisdiction and that any party, or the Court sua
sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time, even after the
8(...continued)
our jurisdiction would be lost.” Similarly, it is the
Commissioner’s determination of worker classification that
provides the predicate for our jurisdiction under sec. 7436. The
ultimate merits of such determination do not affect the Court’s
jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011