- 6 -
respondent’s motion. On January 29, 2002, the Court held
proceedings to determine the correct amount of employment taxes.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner’s principal
place of business was Spokane, Washington.
OPINION
I. Jurisdiction
Petitioner contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
determine the correct amount of employment taxes because:
section 7436 was amended after this Court granted respondent’s
partial motion to dismiss, the notice of determination is
invalid, and no employment tax is due.
A. Our Decision To Vacate the October 14, 1999, Order Was
Proper
Petitioner contends that the Court improperly vacated its
October 14, 1999, order, which granted respondent’s partial
motion to dismiss. Petitioner, relying on Plaut v. Spendthrift
Farm, 514 U.S. 211 (1995), contends that the Constitution’s
separation of powers principles and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment prohibit the reopening of final judgments
relating to section 7436 cases. Petitioner’s reliance on Plaut
is misplaced. In Plaut, the action was dismissed, and the
judgment of dismissal became final prior to the enactment of the
applicable statute. Specifically, the judgment of the District
Court dismissing that case with prejudice was entered on August
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011