James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
          with respect to that notice.16  For the reasons stated in Ander-            
          son v. Commissioner, supra, we hold that Ms. Latos may not                  
          challenge Ms. Latos’ unpaid 1995 liability.                                 
               In Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, the Court further held             
          that, because Ms. Latos and Mr. Anderson did not receive a notice           
          of deficiency with respect to their taxable year 1996 or their              
          taxable year 1997 and did not otherwise have an opportunity to              
          contest the underlying tax liability for each such year, they               
          were entitled to challenge each such underlying tax liability.              
               In challenging the respective income tax liabilities for               
          their taxable years 1996 and 1997, Ms. Latos and Mr. Anderson               
          argued in Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, as Ms. Latos argues              
          here, that the alleged employer of Mr. Anderson during each of              

               16In Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-112, Ms.                
          Latos and Mr. Anderson argued with respect to their taxable year            
          1995, inter alia, that the Court did not have jurisdiction over             
          that year because the actions of respondent’s problem resolution            
          office in abating a portion of the self-employment tax assessed             
          for 1995 converted such self-employment tax to FICA tax.  The               
          Court rejected that argument and held that it had jurisdiction              
          over taxable year 1995 because the actions of respondent’s                  
          problem resolution office did “not change the fact that the 1995            
          liability was assessed as self-employment tax under the defi-               
          ciency procedures.”  Id.                                                    
               In Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, Ms. Latos and Mr.                  
          Anderson also challenged the underlying tax liability for their             
          taxable year 1995, as Ms. Latos does here, on the same ground on            
          which they challenged in Anderson, as Ms. Latos does here, the              
          underlying tax liability for each of the taxable years 1996 and             
          1997, viz., the alleged employer of Mr. Anderson during each of             
          those years is responsible for paying each of those liabilities.            
          As discussed below, in Anderson, the Court rejected that argument           
          as to taxable years 1996 and 1997.  Id.                                     





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007