James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.  In General                                                              
               The issues we consider here arise in connection with                   
          respondent’s determination to proceed with collection and the               
          procedures under section 6330.  Petitioners sought to contest the           
          underlying merits of the liability for all 3 years under                    
          consideration.  Further, they contend that this Court does not              
          have jurisdiction over their 1995 tax year.  Finally, petitioners           
          contend that there was an abuse of discretion in respondent’s               
          determination to proceed with collection of the outstanding                 
          liabilities.                                                                
          II.  Jurisdiction Over the 1995 Tax Year                                    
               This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s               
          proposed collection action in lien and levy cases where we have             
          jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability.  Sec. 6330(d);              
          Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000).  Respondent                
          contends that we have jurisdiction over petitioners’ 1995 tax               
          year because the underlying liability is based upon respondent’s            
          determination of a deficiency in self-employment tax.  This                 
          Court’s jurisdiction over self-employment tax deficiencies is               
          well established.  See Philbin v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 1159                
          (1956).                                                                     
               Conversely, petitioners contend that respondent’s self-                
          employment tax determination was converted to employment tax                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011