- 9 -
liabilities, we stated how the principles of each section listed
in section 7436(d) could apply to a section 7436, before
amendment by CRTRA, case even if we lacked jurisdiction to decide
the amounts of tax due. With regard to the possible application
of the principles of section 6214(a) to section 7436, before
amendment by CRTRA, we stated that the interaction of those two
sections may allow us to “decide worker classification claims
raised by the Commissioner that are not included in the notice of
determination (e.g., a claim regarding the status of additional
persons alleged to be employees) if such claims relate to the
taxpayer and taxable periods in the notice of determination.”
Id. at 6.
It is well established that the Court has jurisdiction to
review an increased deficiency asserted by the Commissioner at or
before the hearing or rehearing. Sec. 6214(a); Ferrill v.
Commissioner, 684 F.2d 261, 265 (3d Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo.
1979-501; H.F. Campbell Co. v. Commissioner, 443 F.2d 965, 970
(6th Cir. 1971), affg. 53 T.C. 439 (1969); Commissioner v.
Finley, 265 F.2d 885, 888 (10th Cir. 1959), affg. O’Shea v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1957-15 and T.C. Memo. 1957-16;
Henningsen v. Commissioner, 243 F.2d 954, 959 (4th Cir. 1957),
affg. 26 T.C. 528 (1956).
We conclude that, pursuant to section 7436, we have
jurisdiction over the Commissioner’s affirmative allegations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011