- 25 -
v. Commissioner, supra, we reject Ms. Latos’ arguments here with
respect to Ms. Latos’ unpaid 1998 liability.18
In Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, the Court further held
that respondent’s Appeals officer complied with the verification
requirements of section 6330(c)(1) and that respondent did not
abuse respondent’s discretion in making the determinations at
issue in that case. For the reasons stated in Anderson v.
Commissioner, supra, we find that the settlement officer involved
in each of the instant cases complied with the verification
requirements of section 6330(c)(1) and that respondent did not
abuse respondent’s discretion in making the respective determina-
tions over which we have jurisdiction19 in the 1995 through 1997
notice of determination and the 1998 notice of determination.20
18See also discussion supra note 17 addressing Ms. Latos’
misplaced reliance on United States v. Galletti, supra.
19See supra note 13.
20We reject as baseless Ms. Latos’ argument that the settle-
ment officer involved in each of the instant cases did not comply
with the verification requirements of sec. 6330(c)(1) because
such settlement officer did not “verify that all applicable laws
and procedures for the collection of employment taxes have been
met”. (Emphasis added.) The instant cases involve the collec-
tion of Ms. Latos’ unpaid self-employment tax liability for her
taxable year 1995 and her unpaid income tax liability for each of
her taxable years 1996, 1997, and 1998. These cases do not
involve the collection of employment tax for any of those years.
We note that although the self-employment tax is collected
together with the income tax, it is not part of the income tax
itself. Chatterji v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. at 1404. As we
indicated in Chatterji, “The self-employment tax imposed is ‘an
additional tax on the income derived by the self-employed * * *
(continued...)
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007