- 7 - Petitioner has never been notified of a duty to file, or that any requirement was placed upon the Petitioner to file, nor was Petitioner ever served with any notice by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue requiring Petitioner to keep records or file a tax return or statement; * * * * * * * * * * Petitioner's Official Records (IMF, not to exclude other systems of records), created and maintained solely by the Internal Revenue Service, reflects the Internal Revenue Service fraud upon Petitioner. Petitioner's Two Motions On December 29, 1995, petitioner filed his first motion, namely, the Motion To Shift Burden Of Proof To Respondent. This motion is premised on petitioner's argument that respondent's deficiency determinations were not based on any factual evidence. On January 11, 1996, petitioner filed his second motion, namely, the Motion To "Quash The Going Forward With The Evidence". Such motion closely tracks petitioner's first motion but also alleges various violations of petitioner's Constitutional rights. The Hearing on the Parties' Motions Respondent's motion to dismiss and petitioner's two motions were called for hearing in Washington, D.C., on February 14, 1996, and again on March 6, 1996. Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearings and presented argument and adduced evidence in respect of the pending motions. Petitioner did notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011