- 11 - OPINION The sole matter for determination is whether the period of limitations on assessment expired prior to the issuance of respondent’s notice of determination. Petitioner contends that the assessment of any additional employment tax liability is barred by the statute of limitations under section 6501, as the notice of determination was issued after the general 3-year period of limitations provided by section 6501(a). Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the general limitations period under section 6501(a) does not apply in this case. Respondent claims that the employment tax returns at issue were false and fraudulent with an intent to evade tax and that the period of limitations thereby remains open pursuant to section 6501(c)(1).7 Accordingly, whether respondent’s notice of determination was timely issued depends on whether petitioner committed fraud in the filing of the employment tax returns. This is the first instance in which this Court has been called upon to determine whether a taxpayer committed fraud in the employment tax context. Nonetheless, the determination of fraud for purposes of the period of limitations on assessment 7 Respondent also alleged in his answer that the failure of petitioner to reflect the cash payments to the workers on the appropriate employment tax returns constituted a willful attempt by petitioner to defeat or evade employment taxes, justifying an indefinite extension of the period of limitations pursuant to sec. 6501(c)(2). However, respondent neither argued this point at trial nor raised it in the course of the posttrial briefing. Accordingly, we treat this argument as having been withdrawn.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011