- 7 -
taxpayer subsequently attempted to use the Court's procedures
governing Lien and Levy Actions3 as a forum to assert frivolous
and groundless constitutional arguments against the Federal
income tax, we cited the statutory limitation imposed under
section 6330(c)(2)(B) and dismissed the petition for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.4
As was the case in Goza v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner
received a notice of deficiency for the years in issue. Further,
petitioner took advantage of the opportunity to contest
respondent’s deficiency determinations in the Tax Court. In
Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-473, the Court sustained
respondent's deficiency determinations. Petitioner now seeks to
use this Lien and Levy Action to present "new evidence" to
establish that he is not liable for the underlying tax
liabilities.5 However, section 6330(c)(2)(B) clearly bars
3 See Title XXXII of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
4 In Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000), the
Commissioner moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim before
filing an answer. In the present case, respondent did not move
for summary judgment until well after the case was at issue
within the meaning of Rule 38.
5 As previously stated, petitioner’s “new evidence” relates
to two civil actions that he instituted in Florida State court in
June 1989 and December 1993. However, both of these civil
actions were pending at the time that petitioner tried his case
in this Court at docket No. 24572-95; further, petitioner failed
to file any posttrial motion or notice of appeal in that docket.
Under these circumstances, we fail to see how the outcome of the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011