- 10 -
workmen’s compensation act which provides compensation to
employees for personal injuries or sickness incurred in the
course of employment.” Sec. 1.104-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Rather, the payment was made in exchange for the execution of the
release in connection with the termination of petitioner’s
employment, as discussed above. The payment is therefore not
excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(1).
Finally, petitioners argue that (1) employment taxes were
erroneously withheld from the one-time payment, and (2) the
interest assessed by respondent is improper. This is a Court of
limited jurisdiction. We may only exercise jurisdiction that is
expressly permitted or provided by statute. See Henry Randolph
Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999). No statute in
the Code provides this Court with jurisdiction to review
respondent’s assessment of employment taxes in this case.3 See
id. Likewise, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
redetermine interest in this case prior to the entry of a
decision redetermining the deficiency. See sec. 7481(c); Rule
261; Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249, 255 (1996).
3Judicial review of employment taxes may be obtained, after
paying the taxes and requesting a refund from the Secretary, in a
refund suit in Federal District Court or the United States Court
of Federal Claims. See sec. 7422(a); 28 U.S.C. secs. 1346(a)(1)
and 1491(a)(1) (1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011