- 4 -
for its authority" to assess and collect taxes if a Tax Court
petition was not filed.
By subsequent order, this Court advised petitioner that his
grounds for refusing to stipulate or admit lacked merit and
further directed him to file supplemental responses to the show
cause order and the motion to review that specifically addressed
each factual matter raised by respondent. Petitioner was further
advised that any failure to respond as directed could result in
matters being deemed stipulated or admitted. The Court also set
a hearing to review petitioner's responses at the commencement of
the trial calendar in Houston, Texas, on June 10, 1996.
Petitioner's supplemental responses failed to specifically
address any matter in the proposed stipulations or the requests
for admission. Instead, in terms substantially identical to
those previously rejected by the Court, petitioner repeated the
BATF argument, and expanded on the argument regarding the lack of
implementing regulations, claiming that title 27 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, but not title 26 thereof, contains
implementing regulations for Internal Revenue Code sections
concerned with the assessment and collection of taxes. Thus,
petitioner concluded, the absence of regulations in title 26 of
the Code of Federal Regulations precludes respondent from
enforcing such Internal Revenue Code sections.
At the June 10, 1996, hearing to review petitioner's
responses, petitioner renewed his argument regarding the lack of
implementing regulations and orally moved for dismissal. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011