- 2 -
deficiencies, and, therefore, there is no basis for
assessment and collection of the tax. R moved to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
Held: The Tax Court has jurisdiction to review a
determination pursuant to sec. 6330(c) and (d), I.R.C.
Held, further, where P timely received a statutory
notice of deficiency, yet he failed to file a petition
for redetermination with the Court, P was precluded
from contesting the issue of the underlying tax
liability during Appeals Office consideration pursuant
to sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), I.R.C. Held, further, P's
petition for review of R's administrative determination
to proceed with collection fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See sec. 6330(d), I.R.C.;
Rule 331(b)(4) and (5), Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Howard Goza, pro se.
Ashton P. Trice and Richard Goldman, for respondent.
OPINION
COHEN, Chief Judge: This case was assigned to Chief Special
Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to the provisions of
section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183. Unless
otherwise indicated, section references are to sections of the
Internal Revenue Code as amended, and Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court agrees with
and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set
forth below.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011