- 6 -
(e) Respondent errored as the statute of
limitation has expired for the year 1996 and has
furnished no evidence that it has been extended.[1]
(f) Respondent errored in that all respondents
facts and evidence submitted to the court are
unsupported, based on hearsay, and not in compliance
with Federal Rules of Evidence.
(g) In support of petitioners facts and evidence,
petitioners declaration, signed under penalty of
perjury, is attached and made part of this matter.
6. The basis of the petitioners case, and the facts
and law upon which petitioner relies, are as
follows:
(a) IRC Sec. 1313(a), Determination--For purposes
of this part, the term “determination” means--
1313(a)(1) a decision by the Tax Court or a judgment,
decree, or other order by any court of competent
jurisdiction, which has become final.
Petitioner states that IRC sec. 1313(1) clearly
states, as it applies to the current matter, that only
Tax Court has the authority to make a “determination.”
Neither the respondent, and/or the District Director
who rubber stamped her signature to the Notice of
Deficiency, as per IRC sec. 1313(a), have the authority
to make a “determination.”
(b) IRC Sec. 6211(a), in General, states--For
purposes of this title in the case of income estate,
and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise
taxes imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term
“deficiency” means the amount by which the tax imposed
by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44
exceeds the excess of–- * * *
1 Petitioners signed their 1996 income tax return on July
31, 1997, and filed it with the IRS at Ogden, Utah, on Aug. 4,
1997. The statutory notice of deficiency for 1996 was mailed to
petitioners on July 5, 2000. Sec. 6503(a)(1) (issuance of
statutory notice) therefore suspended the running of the 3-year
period of limitations provided for in sec. 6501(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011