- 25 -
petition with the Tax Court. We held that, where the
Commissioner failed to place such date on the notice, but the
taxpayers nonetheless received the notice and filed a petition in
a timely manner, the notice was valid. Id. at 492. In so
holding, we noted the absence of any delay prejudicial to the
taxpayers’ ability to petition the Court. Id. at 491-492.
Thus, failure to comply with certain procedural notice
requirements does not rise to the level of a denial of due
process where, as here, the taxpayer’s opportunity to present its
position is not prejudiced.
C. Conclusion
We hold that Ludlow is an employee of petitioner pursuant to
section 3121(d)(1) and that petitioner is not entitled to relief
under Section 530. Accordingly, petitioner is liable for FICA
and FUTA taxes for the periods in issue as set forth in
respondent’s notice of determination and relevant stipulations.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent and in accordance with
stipulations as to amounts.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Last modified: May 25, 2011