- 5 -
were used to make the assessment; (2) authority of the person(s)
making the assessment to do so; (3) a job description of the
officer(s) included in this conference; (4) proof that the
statutory notices of deficiency for each year in question were
sent to her, and copies of those notices; (5) proof that the
notice and demand for each year in question was sent to her, and
copies of those notices; and (6) the law that requires an
American to pay income taxes.
On December 19, 2000, Lacienski conducted a hearing in
petitioner’s case for tax years 1993 and 1994. At the hearing,
petitioner contended that the Tax Court is not a valid court,
assessments can only be made from a filed return, there is no law
which requires her to pay income tax, the certificate of
assessment must be present at the hearing, respondent’s agents
and employees lack authority to collect tax, she had a right to
receive Lacienski’s job description, and she was not receiving a
fair and impartial hearing.
On January 31, 2001, petitioner wrote to Lacienski and
claimed that she had not received a fair hearing by an impartial
officer and that the Appeals officer did not have at the hearing
the delegation orders, signed returns from which assessments were
made, documents showing that respondent had sent notices of
deficiency and notice and demand to her, and copies of the law
showing that she was liable for income tax. Petitioner stated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011