Stephen C. Smith - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          the Commissioner but does not apply to notices of deficiency);              
          Janus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-195 (finding that forms              
          included in the notices of deficiency detailing the adjustments             
          made by the Commissioner were not substitute returns under                  
          section 6020 and that nothing in the Internal Revenue Code                  
          requires the Secretary to file a return pursuant to section 6020            
          before assessing a deficiency); Ebert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          1991-629 (rejecting taxpayer's assertion that there is no section           
          of the Internal Revenue Code that makes taxpayer liable for the             
          taxes claimed), affd. without published opinion 986 F.2d 1427               
          (10th Cir. 1993); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-334                 
          (stating that the allegation that the conduct of agents of the              
          Internal Revenue Service in issuing the notice of deficiency                
          violates section 7214 is a matter over which the Tax Court has no           
          jurisdiction); Spencer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-145                 
          (stating that section 6065 does not require notices of deficiency           
          issued by Commissioner to be signed under penalties of perjury).            
          B.   Whether Petitioner Is Liable for Income Tax on the Amounts             
               That Terminex Paid to King of Construction in the Years in             
               Issue                                                                  
               Petitioner contends that he is not liable for tax on                   
          payments from Terminex to King of Construction because Jesus                
          Christ and not petitioner owned King of Construction.  We                   
          disagree.  Petitioner owned and controlled King of Construction.            
          There is no evidence that King of Construction is incorporated.             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011