William W. Howard - Page 7

                                        - 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             
               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            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011