- 10 -
properly invoked in a case, we require no additional jurisdiction
to render a decision with respect to such an affirmative defense.
See Genesis Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra at 564.
Rather, “When such a defense in bar is properly raised, we must
pass upon the merits of the issue after receiving evidence with
respect thereto”. Badger Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
at 1063. Accordingly, we hold that where the parties are
properly before the Court in an action brought under section
7436, the Court possesses jurisdiction to address issues relating
to the period of limitations under section 6501 that are properly
raised by the parties.
In this case, our jurisdiction over the parties under
section 7436 was invoked through petitioner’s timely filed
petition seeking review of respondent’s notice of determination.
When petitioner pleaded as an affirmative defense in his petition
that respondent’s determination as to worker classification was
barred by expiration of the 3-year period of limitations under
section 6501(a), we required no additional jurisdiction to
address such issue. Furthermore, when respondent alleged in his
answer that the period of limitations in this case remained open
pursuant to section 6501(c) on account of petitioner’s fraudulent
conduct, we required no additional jurisdiction to decide whether
the circumstances described in section 6501(c) were present in
this case.
We have considered respondent’s other arguments in favor of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011