- 4 -
employment tax issues in some instances, we have jurisdiction in
the present case. Respondent counters that this is not a case
involving redetermination of employment status.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Sec. 7442. The Court’s jurisdiction over collection
matters under section 6330(d)(1) is limited to situations where
the Court has jurisdiction over the “underlying tax liability”.
We read “underlying tax liability” in section 6330(d)(1)(B) to be
case specific. Our jurisdiction in employment tax matters is
likewise limited, and petitioner concedes that we would lack
jurisdiction under section 7436 to address the merits of the
employment tax and penalties which respondent is attempting to
collect. Because we do not have jurisdiction over the underlying
tax liability in this case, we do not have jurisdiction over the
related collection action. See Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
171 (2000); see also Gorospe v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___ (9th
Cir. 2006).
2(...continued)
of the Revenue Act of 1978 with respect to
such an individual,
upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, the Tax
Court may determine whether such a determination by the
Secretary is correct and the proper amount of
employment tax under such determination. Any such
redetermination by the Tax Court shall have the force
and effect of a decision of the Tax court and shall be
reviewable as such.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011