- 9 -
(FICA) due to certain conduct by respondent’s employees. If the
1995 tax had been assessed as the employee’s portion of FICA, we
would lack subject matter jurisdiction. See Chatterji v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1402, 1405 (1970); Ietto v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-332.
The conduct by respondent’s employees referenced by
petitioners involves the problem resolution officer’s conclusion
that Mr. Anderson was an employee and recommendation that the
assessment should be reduced. Petitioners also rely on the
Appeals officer’s acceptance of the problem resolution officer’s
recommendation and the further reduction to make the correct
adjustment to reflect employee status. Petitioners contend that
these actions by respondent’s employees converted the self-
employment tax determination into a case involving employment tax
(FICA).
A related issue was raised in regard to petitioners’ 1994
tax year. See Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-311. In
that regard, respondent determined a deficiency in self-
employment tax for 1994, and a notice of deficiency was issued to
petitioners. Subsequently, the parties agreed to rescind the
notice of deficiency for 1994 and to treat Mr. Anderson as an
employee for the 1994 tax year. Ironically, in that case the
parties’ roles were reversed; i.e., petitioners argued that this
Court had jurisdiction, and respondent argued that we did not.
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