-21-
we also note that we have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that
respondent determined that “Other Workers” had during that year
received $2,585 of wages from petitioner. Although respondent
now concedes that determination, respondent’s concession has no
bearing upon our jurisdiction. Cf. LTV Corp. v. Commissioner,
64 T.C. 589 (1975) (respondent’s concession of no deficiency in a
year did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of that year).
Our conclusion is further supported by an analogy to the
applicable law underlying the issuance of a notice of
deficiency.8 The Court may acquire jurisdiction in such a
setting only when the Commissioner has determined that there is a
deficiency. Secs. 6212(a), 6213(a); see also Richards v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-149, affd. without published
opinion 165 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 1998). It is the determination of
a deficiency, rather than the existence of a deficiency, that is
dispositive as to our jurisdiction. Hannan v. Commissioner,
52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969). Thus, even when a taxpayer has made a
showing that casts doubt on the validity of a determination in a
notice of deficiency, the notice is generally not rendered void,
8 Under sec. 7436(d), the principles of secs. 6213(a), (b),
(c), (d), and (f), 6214(a), 6215, 6503(a), 6512, and 7481 apply
to cases that arise under sec. 7436, as if the Secretary’s notice
of determination were a notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011