- 26 -
3463(a) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 767. In Smith v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 489 (2000), affd. 275 F.3d 912 (10th Cir.
2001), we considered this requirement that the Commissioner
include on each notice of deficiency the last date for filing a
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 Sadanaga 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.
Furthermore, given this result compelled by the facts before us,
it is unnecessary to reach respondent’s additional contention
that petitioner should in any event be precluded from challenging
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011