John Thurman and Elaine Sheryl Horejs - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
               Even if petitioners were permitted to challenge the validity           
          of the notice of deficiency, petitioners’ arguments are frivolous           
          and groundless.  See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165              
          (2002); Goza v. Commissioner, supra.  As the Court of Appeals for           
          the Fifth Circuit has remarked:  “We perceive no need to refute             
          these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of               
          precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some            
          colorable merit.”  Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417               
          (5th Cir. 1984).  Suffice it to say that petitioners are                    
          taxpayers subject to the Federal income tax, see secs. 1(a)(1),             
          7701(a)(1), (14), and that compensation for labor or services               
          rendered constitutes income subject to the Federal income tax,              
          see sec. 61(a)(1); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016             
          (9th Cir. 1981).                                                            
               We likewise reject petitioners’ argument that the Appeals              
          officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the           
          requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures           
          were met as required by section 6330(c)(1).  The record shows               
          that the Appeals officer obtained and reviewed Forms 4340 with              
          regard to petitioners’ taxable years 1992, 1993, and 1994.                  
               Federal tax assessments are formally recorded on a record of           

               4(...continued)                                                        
          petitioners do not point to any discrepancy in the record or set            
          forth specific facts that would suggest that there is a genuine             
          issue for trial whether these items were properly assessed.  See            
          Rule 121(d).                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011