- 2 - (2000), the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the disputed determination letters because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the underlying taxes (frivolous return penalty under sec. 6702). Ps filed oppositions to R's motions asserting that the cases should be dismissed on the ground that the determination letters are invalid. Held: R's motions to dismiss will be denied. Held, further,: These cases will be dismissed on the ground that the determination letters are invalid. William B. Meyer and Diane S. Meyer, pro se. Katrine Shelton and Richard Goldman, for respondent. OPINION DAWSON, Judge: These cases were assigned to Chief Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4).2 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: These cases are before the Court on respondent's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented. As discussed in detail below, we will dismiss these cases for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that respondent's Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Action are invalid. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011