- 12 -
classification) and the proper amount of employment tax7 under
such determinations.8 Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102-103 (2003), affd. 425 F.3d 1203
(9th Cir. 2005); Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
263, 267-268 (2001). However, our jurisdiction under section
7436(a) depends upon, and only arises after, a determination of
worker classification by the Secretary. Charlotte’s Office
Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 103. The Secretary has
not made such a determination in this case, and therefore we do
not have original jurisdiction under section 7436 over
petitioners’ claims for hospital tax offsets against their income
tax deficiencies.9
7Sec. 7436(e) defines the term “employment tax” as any tax
imposed by subtit. C, which encompasses secs. 3101 to 3510. Sec.
7436(a) was amended to give the Court authority to determine the
proper amount of employment tax by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. 106-554, app. G, sec. 314(f),
114 Stat. 2763A-643 (2000).
8Sec. 7436(d)(1) provides that “The principles of
subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section
6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section
7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the
same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in
subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.”
9We also have jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to
make a determination under sec. 31, which allows a credit against
income tax for the withholding of excess employment tax as a
result of the taxpayer’s having received wages from more than one
employer. See Chatterji v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1402, 1405-1406
(1970); Else v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-36; Purdy v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-652. However, sec. 31 is not at
issue in this case and provides no basis for asserting original
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008