- 7 -
motions are virtually identical with those made in docket No.
18510-99. We shall deny the motion in each docket.
When the cases were called for hearing, petitioners asked
for a continuance to provide additional time to pursue discovery.
The stated purpose of the discovery was to ascertain information
with respect to the “correctness of the dollar amount, or
additional tax liability that the district [director] * * * used
to make his determination” and the failure of that individual to
“identify the IRS code section or regulation that the notice of
deficiency determination was based on”. We denied the oral
motions to continue since they were essentially repetitive of
petitioners’ prior written motions.
The notices of deficiency in these cases make determinations
based on tax returns filed by petitioners. As such, petitioners’
reliance on Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987),
revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983), is misplaced. In Scar, the parties
agreed that the notice of deficiency had no relationship to the
taxpayer’s return. Petitioners’ argument that the determination
of a deficiency without a “statutorily procedural correct lawful
assessment” is likewise misplaced. Once a notice of deficiency
has been issued, a taxpayer has 90 days in which to file a
petition with this Court. During this period, no assessment for
the deficiency may be made, and no levy or proceeding in court
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011