- 10 -
“Once our jurisdiction has been properly invoked in a case, we
require no additional jurisdiction to render a decision with
respect to such an affirmative defense.” Id. at 292. Thus, we
held that where the parties were properly before the Court in an
action brought under section 7436, the Court had jurisdiction to
decide whether the period of limitations barred an assessment
based on respondent’s worker classification determination. Id.
at 292-293.
Neely is distinguishable. In Neely, we reasoned that where
the Court had jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
preassessment determination of worker classification, we likewise
had jurisdiction to determine whether the Commissioner was barred
from assessing employment taxes by the expiration of the period
of limitations. Section 7436(a) granted us jurisdiction to
“determine whether such a [worker classification] determination
by the Secretary is correct”. Like the deficiency procedures,
the procedure set forth in section 7436 provides a preassessment
forum for employment tax issues. In a preassessment proceeding
it is logical to decide whether the proposed assessment is barred
by the statute of limitations, and it is clear that we have
jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to decide whether
assessment of the deficiency is barred by the statute of
limitations. See Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776 (1989);
Worden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-193; Ruff v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011