§7436 — Proceedings for determination of employment status

Unlike issuance of a Notice of Deficiency for deficiency jurisdiction, issuance of a Notice of Determination is not a threshold requirement under section 7436; the requirement is only that the Commissioner made a determination of worker classification or with respect to RA 1978 section 530 relief.

The 90-day deadline in section 7436(b)(2) applies only when the Commissioner (1) sends a notice of employment tax determination to the taxpayer and (2) sends the notice via certified or registered mail. See Am. Airlines, 144 T.C. at 36 n.10. In cases where the Commissioner either fails to send a notice or fails to send the notice through certified or registered mail, the 90-day deadline is inapplicable.

7436(b)(2) is inapplicable and the petition is timely.

We note, however, that we have recently held that a notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436 was valid even though it did not name the individuals whom the Commissioner determined to be employees. Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 250 (1999). We also note that section 7491(a), which in certain cases shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner, does not apply to employment tax determinations.

Thus, we held that where the parties were properly before the Court in an action brought under section 7436, the Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the period of limitations barred an assessment based on respondent’s worker classification determination. Id. at 292-293. Neely is distinguishable.

Petitioner contends that this shows that cases arising under section 7436 are unlike declaratory judgment cases because we know the identity of the taxpayer in a case brought under section 7436.

We do not agree with petitioner, however, that those cases suggest that the notice in this case is fatally defective.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WEILER, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436.1 In a Notice of Employment Tax Determination of Worker Classification (notice of determination), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that petitioner (1) failed to classify some of its workers as employees during tax periods beginning in 2010 through 2015 (tax periods at issue); (2) was n

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GREAVES, Judge: This case is before the Court on a Petition for redetermination of employment status filed pursuant to section 7436.1 In a Notice of Employment Tax Determination of Worker Classification dated January 16, 2020 (notice of determination), the Internal Revenue Service (respondent or Service) determined that: (1) Pediatric Impressions Home Health, Inc., failed to classify approximately 99 individuals as employees du

Served 07/13/21 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of employment status filed pursuant to section 7436.2 In a notice of determination of worker classification dated November 14, 2011, respondent determined that Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc.

Served 06/14/21 - 2 - [*2] The petition was filed for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436.1 In a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification (NDWC) the IRS determined that Ron H.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ASHFORD, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination ofemployment status pursuant to section 7436.¹ In a notice of ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: These consolidated cases are before the Court on two petitions for redetermination ofemployment status filed pursuant to section 7436.¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

(petitioner), a notice of determination regarding worker classification or make any other determination SERVED Apr 05 2016 - 2 - [*2] sufficient to conferjurisdiction on this Court pursuant to section 7436¹ and (2) respondent did not conduct an "examination" in connection with an "audit" for petitioner.

Section 7436 governs proceedings for determinations ofemployment status.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: These consolidated cases are before the Court on two petitions for redetermination ofemployment status filed pursuant to section 7436.¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

Section 7436 governs proceedings in this Court for determining employment status.

(petitioner), pursuant to section 7436.

MEMO NDUM OPINION THORNTON, ChiefJudge: This is an action for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436 and Rule 291.1 Respondent moves to 1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the applicable versions ofthe Internal Revenue Code.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of employment status filed pursuant to section 7436.1 In a notice of determination of wòrker Unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

SERVED Oct 28 2010 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Petitioners have brought these actions for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436.1 In a notice of determination of worker classification dated February 15, 2007, respondent determined that for 2002 petitioner Cheryl A.

' Pursuant to section 7436, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to review certain determinations made by the Commissioner regarding worker classification and the proper amount of employment tax under such determinations .' Charlotte's Office Boutique, Inc .

SERVED JUN 1 4 2006 2 - OPINION THORNTON, Judge : This is an action for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436 and Rule 291 .1 Petitioner, a limited liability company (LLC), is owned and operated by Larry and Marilyn Conway (the Conways), who have filed chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions .

At the hearing, the issue arose regarding whether, pursuant to section 7436, the Court had jurisdiction over additional 3 Pars.

Petitioner filed with the Court a timely petition seeking our review of the notice of determination pursuant to section 7436.

Accordingly, we hold that where the parties are properly before the Court in an action brought under section 7436, the Court possesses jurisdiction to address issues relating to the period of limitations - 7 - under section 6501 that are properly raised by the parties.

Therefore, we hold that we do have jurisdiction over additions to tax and penalties found in chapter 68 of subtitle F (sections 6651 through 6751), including deciding the proper amount of such additions to tax and penalties, related to taxes imposed by subtitle C with respect to worker classification or section 530 t

For reasons discussed below, we hold that we possess such jurisdiction.

7 As for the deadline in section 7436(b)(2), we see nothing in the statute’s text to rebut the presumption that equitable tolling applies. Section 7436 does not expressly prohibit equitable tolling. See Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1500. Nor does the wording strike us as “unusually emphatic,” “highly detailed,” or “technical.” See Brockamp, 519 U.S. at 350. Although section 7436 uses emphatic wording—“no proceeding may be initiated”—it does not strike us as unusually emphatic. I

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: The petition in this case, brought by Reflectxion Resources, Inc., pursuant to section 7436,¹ seeks-- ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) - 3 - [*3] a redetermination ofthe determinations and deficiencies in Federal income tax withholding and Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") taxes for the sixteen calendar quarters in the years 2008 through 2011, set forth by the

7436(a) to determine P's employmenttax liabilities. I.R.C. sec. 7436(a) provides in pertinentpart that "[i]f, in connection with an audit ofany person, there is an actual controversy involving a determination by the Secretary as part ofan examination that * * * such person is not entitled to the treatment under subsection (a) of section 530 ofthe Revenue Act of 1978 * * *, the Tax Court may determine whether sùch a determination by the Secretary is correct and the proper amount ofemployment tax

7436(a) to determine P's employmenttax liabilities. I.R.C. sec. 7436(a) provides in pertinentpart that "[i]f, in connection with an audit ofany person, there is an actual controversy involving a determination by the Secretary as part ofan examination that * * * such person is not entitled to the treatment under subsection (a) of section 530 ofthe Revenue Act of 1978 * * *, the Tax Court may determine whether sùch a determination by the Secretary is correct and the proper amount ofemployment tax

1) 319, 961 (stating in the explanation of provision of section 7436 that “one way the IRS could make the required determination is through a mechanism similar to the employment tax early referral procedures”).

WC means the assessment is invalid and the IRS may not collect the disputed employment taxes unless and until an NDWC is sent. Under petitioner’s theory, issuance of an NDWC would trigger the right to file a petition and seek our determination under section 7436. Our jurisdiction is not expanded or contracted by the positions of the parties. Thus, it is not dispositive that both parties claim that we lack jurisdiction. See Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102 (2003

Jurisdiction Petitioner contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the correct amount of employment taxes because: section 7436 was amended after this Court granted respondent’s partial motion to dismiss, the notice of determination is invalid, and no employment tax is due.

In Neely, a taxpayer invoked our jurisdiction by filing a petition pursuant to section 7436 seeking to review the Commissioner’s adverse determination of worker classification.

On January 26, 2001, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) for 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

On March 19, 1998, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436 which said in part: As a result of an employment tax audit, we are sending you this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING WORKER CLASSIFICATION UNDER SECTION 7436.

motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is more properly characterized as petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that respondent did not issue a valid notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. As we discussed in detail in Randolph Consulting I, on March 19, 1998, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of det

8 T.C. No. 6 TREECE FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 20850-19. Filed April 19, 2022. ————— P, a corporation, petitioned for review of a notice of employment tax determination under I.R.C. § 7436. The parties agree that respondent properly determined that E is an employee of P but dispute the proper amount of employment tax under that determination. P asserts that the amount should be computed using R’s Announcement 2012-45, 201

--- MAJORITY --- Goeke, Judge: These consolidated cases are before us on petitions for redetermination of employment status filed pursuant to section 7436. In separate Notices of Determination Concerning Worker Classification (notices) respondent determined that for purposes of Federal employment taxes, the individuals listed in Table 1 attached to the notices should be legally classified as petitioners’ employees and thus determined deficiencies in, additions to, and penalties with resp

Petitioner counters that this Court does have jurisdiction to review the status of employees pursuant to section 7436 and reasons that we do have jurisdiction of the underlying tax liability in question .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: The petition in this case was filed pursuant to section 7436 and Rule 291 in response to a Notice of SERVED SEP 2 7 2006 - 2 - Determination of Worker Classification, dated July 28, 2004.¹ Respondent determined that, for purposes of Federal employment taxes, petitioner's workers were employees and petitioner owed total employment taxes under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code for the years

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Thornton, Judge: This is an action for redetermination of employment status pursuant to section 7436 and Rule 291.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This is an employment status determination case brought pursuant to section 7436.1 On May 9, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification under section 7436, in which it was determined that, during the taxable years 1996 and 1997, Dennis Katz was a statutory employee of petitioner and petitioner 1 Except with reference to sec.

Background, Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436 (notice of determination).

This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination).

ection 6501(c) by reason of petitioner’s fraudulent conduct. In a previous opinion, we addressed whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to address issues pertaining to the period of limitations on assessment in the context of a case brought under section 7436. We resolved that inquiry in the affirmative. See Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287 (2000). Accordingly, we now address whether the period of limitations on assessment expired prior to the issuance of respondent’s notice of determinati

287 (2000), an analogous case, we held that we had jurisdiction to decide an affirmative defense raised by a taxpayer in a section 7436 case (proceedings for determination of employment status).

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for a redetermination of a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436.1 1Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

d of limitations on assessment remains open, pursuant to section 6501(c), on account of petitioner’s fraudulent conduct. The Court, sua sponte, questioned whether we have jurisdiction to address these arguments in the context of a case brought under section 7436. For reasons discussed below, we hold that we possess such jurisdiction. Background During 1992, petitioner operated a sole proprietorship (the company) whose principal place of business was in Mesa, Arizona. Petitioner resided in Phoeni

a Letter 3523, Notice of Employment Tax Determination Under Section 7436 (notice), reclassifying Dock D.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION NEGA, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Employment Tax Determination Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and federal income tax withholding (ITW) for the quarters ending June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2014 (periods at issue).1 This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s determination and to decide

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LAUBER, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermi- nation ofemployment status filed pursuantto section 7436.' In a Notice ofDeter- 'Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the taxable year in issue.

far" is Charlotte's Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102 (2003), aff'd, 425 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, we declined to give upjurisdiction even after the Commissioner conceded that his initial determination, made in a sec. 7436 notice ofdetermination which had furnished the "ticket to the Court", was incorrect. In the notice ofdetermination, the Commissioner had determined, with respect to the employer who had petitioned the Court, "that 'Other Workers' had during

Petitioner seeks a redetermination ofemployment status pursuant to - 2 - section 7436.i Respondent determined in the notice that petitioner, Twin Rivers Farm, Inc.

r” is Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102 (2003), aff’d, 425 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, we declined to give up jurisdiction even after the Commissioner conceded that his initial determination, made in a sec. 7436 notice of determination which had furnished the “ticket to the Court”, was incorrect. In the notice of determination, the Commissioner had determined, with respect to the employer who had petitioned the Court, “that ‘Other Workers’ had durin

However, our jurisdiction under section 7436 (a) is dependent upon the Commissioner' s issuance of a notice of determination concerning worker classification Id.; Neely v.

etitioner was not entitled to act section 530 relief,: and (3) petitioner owed employment tax of $477,617.74. The Tax Court Proceeding On June 14, 2007, we received and filed petitioner's Petition for Redetermination of Employment Status Under Code Section 7436. The petition asserted, in relevant part, that respondent erred in his determinations that (1) petitioner's medical transcriptionists were employees, (2) petitioner was not entitled to act section 530 relief; and (3) petitioner owed addit

nt taxes (and fraud penalties) from petitioner. We shall address the issues remaini g for decision in the order stated. Our authority to determin the employment classification question here in,issue an the proper amount of employment tax is found in section 7436 . II . Issue Preclusion A . Introduction Relying on the doctrine of issue preclusion, respondent a argues that, as a result of, the plea agr ement, petitioner may not contest its responsibility to pay the employment taxes her e in issue

taxes (and fraud penalties) from petitioner. We shall address the issues remaining for decision in the order stated. Our authority to determine the employment classification question here in issue and the proper amount of employment tax is found in section 7436. II. Issue Preclusion A. Introduction Relying on the doctrine of issue preclusion, respondent argues that, as a result of the plea agreement, petitioner may not contest its responsibility to pay the employment taxes here in issue. Petiti

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.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: In a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification (notice of determination) under section 7436,1 respondent determined that nine workers were employees of 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the periods in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1997, - 2 - 1998, and 1999 and each of the quarters therein (periods at issue).1 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether certain drivers who operated petitioner’s trucks wer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed mootness in the context of section 7436 (employment classification) cases.

In that case, the Commissioner determined that the taxpayer's workers were classified as employees for the purposes of Federal employment taxes under section 7436 and assessed employment.taxes against the taxpayer.

In that case, the Commissioner determined that the taxpayer's workers were classified as employees for the purposes of Federal employment taxes under section 7436 and assessed employment taxes against the taxpayer.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

As such, only the amounts paid to the individuals in 1996--not the characterization of the payments--is at issue. The amount of the payments was not addressed at trial, however, and nothing was produced to substantiate any such payments in excess of what respondent determined had been made. Petitioners have failed to substantiate any of

NIMS, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), sections 3101-3128, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), sections 3301-3311, for 1996.

As such, only the amounts paid to the individuals in 1996--not the characterization of the payments--is at issue. The amount of the payments was not addressed at trial, however, and nothing was produced to substantiate any such payments in excess of what respondent determined had been made. Petitioners have failed to substantiate any of

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1997 and 1998.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1995, 1996, and 1997.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner's liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1995, 1996, and 1997.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

- 2 - OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition, as amended, under section 7436 as in effect at the time the petition was filed.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment - 2 - Tax Act (FUTA) for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

--- MAJORITY --- NlMS, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner’s liabilities pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (fica), sections 3101-3128, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), sections 3301-3311, for 1996.

. Filed May 29, 2002. Edgar H. Bridger, for petitioner. Linda P. Azmon, for respondent. PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for a redetermination of a Notice Of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, a

On February 23, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification under Section 7436 (the notice).

On February 23, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436 (the notice).

S. Filed August 17, 2001. Charles R. Clarke, pro se. Julie L. Payne, for respondent. GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for a redetermination of a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. See sec. 7436(c). Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect f

to A, its sole shareholder and president. A performs substantial services for P. On his Forms 1040, A reported P’s net income as nonpassive income from an S corporation. R issued to P a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Sec. 7436, determining that A was an employee of P for purposes of Federal employment tax. Held: A is an employee of P for purposes of Federal employment tax pursuant to sec. 31.3121(d)-(1)(b), Employment Tax Regs., because A is an officer who perfor

ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for a redetermination of a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436.1 The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of a Notice of Determination Concerning Worker Classification Under Section 7436 (Notice of Determination).

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Jacobs, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of a notice of determination concerning worker classification under section 7436 (notice of determination).

ions, Inc., 310 U.S. 4 As we stated in our order dated Apr. 9, 1998, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's failure to abate penalties. Sec. 6404(g) only provides the Court jurisdiction to review the failure to abate interest, and sec. 7436 does not provide the Court with jurisdiction because this case does not involve a redetermination of employment status. - 6 - 534, 542-543 (1940); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 116, 128 (1996). Phrases must be construed in

to the nearest dollar. As we stated in our order dated Apr. 9, 1998, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s failure to abate penalties. Sec. 6404(g) only provides the Court jurisdiction to review the failure to abate interest, and sec. 7436 does not provide the Court with jurisdiction because this case does not involve a redetermination of employment status. Even if we were to look at the legislative history, however, it does not contradict the language of the statute. While t