Tax Court In Brief | Treece Financial Services Group v. Comm'r/Treece Investment Advisory Corp. v. Comm'r | VCSP And IRS Discretion

Published date26 April 2022
Subject MatterFinance and Banking, Tax, Financial Services, Tax Authorities
Law FirmFreeman Law
AuthorFreeman Law

The Tax Court in Brief - April 18th- April 22nd, 2022

Freeman Law's "The Tax Court in Brief" covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose.

For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project.

Tax Litigation: The Week of April 18th, 2022, through April 22nd, 2022

  • Sezonov. Comm'r, TC Memo. 2022-40| April 20, 2022 | Marvel, J. | Dkt. No 26650-17
  • Bindel v. Commissioner |April 20, 2022 | Urda, P. | Dkt. No. 9552-19
  • Kohout v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-37 |April 18, 2022?|Jones, J. | Dkt. No. 11958-17

Treece Financial Services Group v. Comm'r, 158 T.C. No. 6 | April 19, 2022 | Kerrigan, J. | Dkt. No. 20850-19

Opinion

and related opinion, Treece Investment Advisory Corp. v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2022-38| April 19, 2022 | Kerrigan, J. | Dkt. No. 21015-19

Opinion

Treece Financial Services Group v. Commissioner

Short Summary: This case discusses two procedural issues. First, whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction to determine an IRS' determination made in regard to the applicability of the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VCSP). Second, whether a motion for summary judgement (MSJ) filed by the petitioner was to be granted. The relevant part of the opinion rests on the first issue.

Dock D. Treece (Mr. Treece) was the sole corporate officer of Treece Financial Services Group (petitioner) during the 2015-2017 period (the years at issue). Petitioner classified Mr. Treece as an independent contractor during the years at issue. The IRS issued a notice of employment tax determination under section 7436 and reclassified Mr. Treece as an employee, determining additional tax owed under section 6651(a) and penalties under section 6656.

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tax Court. The parties agreed that Mr. Treece was an employee, but disagreed on whether petitioner could use the VCSP to compute the amount of employment tax owed. The IRS argued that the Tax Court did not had jurisdiction to review the IRS determination and moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a MSJ under the argument that it had met all the requirements in the VCSP. Both motions were denied. The IRS' motion was denied because the Tax Court concluded it had jurisdiction over the employment tax determination. The MSJ was denied because there was a dispute of fact as to whether all the requirements of the VCSP were actually met by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT