- 19 -
Third, petitioners argue that "even if the deficiency
notices sent by IRS were valid, any additional assessments
that they would have created would be invalid." According
to Mr. Webber, this is true because respondent "has no
delegated authority to prepare returns for Petitioner and,
therefore, no legal deficiency notices are possible in the
instant case where Petitioner did not self-assess himself."
Fourth, petitioners argue that "any returns provided
by Respondent that were prepared by a revenue officer in
the San Jose office of Internal Revenue will not conform
to 26 USC 6065 because such returns are not authorized by
law nor are they affirmed under penalties of perjury."
Similarly, petitioners argue that respondent's agent
violated the law "by failing to provide a lawful signature
on his information reports" as required by section 6065.
Petitioners charge that, by completing the statements of
income tax examination changes that are attached to the
notices of deficiency and by filing those statements as
"substitute returns" for petitioners under section 6020(b),
respondent's agent has "made an attempt to extort sums"
from petitioners in violation of section 7214.
Fifth, petitioners assert that under our system of
taxation, "the only way Internal Revenue can legally
collect an income tax from an individual citizen * * *
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011