Henry Hermanus Van Es - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                    Held, further, the Court lacks jurisdiction to                    
               review the Appeals officer’s determination that the                    
               levy with regard to the uncollected frivolous return                   
               penalties and related interest should proceed.  See                    
               Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171 (2000).                            


               Henry H. Van Es, pro se.                                               
               Thomas R. Mackinson, for respondent.                                   

                                       OPINION                                        
               VASQUEZ, Judge:  Petitioner filed a petition in response to            
          respondent’s Notice of Determination Concerning Collection                  
          Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of                         
          determination).1  In the petition, petitioner disputes                      
          respondent’s assessment of section 6702 frivolous return                    
          penalties (and related interest) and alleges that respondent has            
          violated his Fifth Amendment rights as a result of that                     
          assessment.  Because under section 6703 we lack jurisdiction to             
          review assessments of section 6702 frivolous return penalties,              
          respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of               
          jurisdiction.  Petitioner concedes the issue to the extent that             
          he can file a petition with a U.S. District Court within 30 days            
          of the dismissal of the instant case.2                                      


               1  Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to           
          the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are           
          to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                           
               2  For purposes of respondent’s motion, petitioner does not            
          dispute various factual allegations that are part of the record.            




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011