- 9 -
lacked jurisdiction to decide the amounts of employment taxes at
issue if respondent’s determination as to worker classification
were sustained. See id. at 13.
Relying on our opinion in Henry Randolph Consulting,
respondent now argues that we lack jurisdiction to decide which
period of limitations applies under section 6501 and whether
respondent’s determination was made after the expiration of such
period, because such a decision would constitute a substantive
determination falling outside of the two determinations which the
Court is authorized to make under section 7436(a). We agree with
respondent that the issue of whether respondent’s determination
is barred by expiration of the period of limitations on
assessment under section 6501 constitutes a substantive matter,
as opposed to a plea to the jurisdiction of this Court. See
Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 562, 564 (1989);
Robinson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 735, 737 (1972); Badger
Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 1061, 1063 (1963).
However, we do not share respondent’s belief that we lack
jurisdiction to address matters relating to the period of
limitations on assessment in the worker classification context.
The statute of limitations set forth in section 6501
constitutes a defense at bar (i.e., an affirmative defense) that
may be raised by the taxpayer in response to a determination made
by the Commissioner. See Rule 39; Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra at 564. Once our jurisdiction has been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011