James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 24




                                       - 24 -                                         
               Ms. Latos did not receive a notice of deficiency with                  
          respect to her taxable year 1998.  Nor did she otherwise have an            
          opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability for that                
          year.  We shall review that liability on a de novo basis.  Sego             
          v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610.  Ms. Latos advances essentially           
          the same arguments here with respect to Ms. Latos’ unpaid 1998              
          liability that she and Mr. Anderson advanced, and the Court                 
          rejected, in Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-112, with            
          respect to their unpaid income tax liability for each of their              
          taxable years 1996 and 1997.  For the reasons stated in Anderson            

               17(...continued)                                                       
          entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability for each of              
          her taxable years 1996 and 1997, we reject her argument with                
          respect to each such liability for the reasons stated in Anderson           
          v. Commissioner, supra.  In this connection, we note that Ms.               
          Latos also relies in the instant cases on United States v.                  
          Galletti, 541 U.S. 114 (2004), a case that the Supreme Court of             
          the United States (Supreme Court) decided after the Court issued            
          Anderson.  Ms. Latos’ reliance on Galletti is misplaced.  The               
          issue presented in Galletti was whether the proper assessment of            
          income tax that a partnership was required to withhold under sec.           
          3403 extended the period of limitations to collect such tax from            
          the partnership’s general partners who were liable for the                  
          payment of the partnership’s debts.  United States v. Galletti,             
          supra.  The Supreme Court held that it did.  Id.  The Supreme               
          Court did not hold in Galletti that an employer is responsible              
          for paying the income tax liability of an employee of such                  
          employer.  Id.  As the United States Court of Appeals for the               
          Second Circuit held in Church v. Commissioner, 810 F.2d 19, 20              
          (2d Cir. 1987):                                                             
               It is clear that the failure of an employer to meet its                
               obligation to withhold income tax does not in any way                  
               lessen the obligation of an employee to pay income tax.                
               Indeed, we have long since rejected the contrary posi-                 
               tion even in the context of a criminal prosecution.                    
               [Citations omitted.]                                                   





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

Last modified: November 10, 2007