- 21 -
PETITIONER: That’s correct sir. Yes, sir.
* * *
THE COURT: Okay. Now, what else--Mr. Johnson, do you want to
say anything else in opposition to the
Government’s motion?
PETITIONER: Judge, my position is strictly that this whole
case has to do with whether or not the Tax Court
has jurisdiction to rule on a violation of Section
6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, and it is not
addressing the frivolous penalty as such, even
though that is the underlying part of this case.
This motion to dismiss is based upon frivolous
penalty; my objection has to do with Section 6330
of the Code, that I’ve not had a due-process
hearing and that the Government has admitted that
I’ve not had a due-process hearing.
* * *
THE COURT: Mr. Crump, do you think that the Tax Court has
jurisdiction to decide the Johnsons’ claim
relating to the hearing?
RESPONDENT: Based on my reading of Meyer, I would--I think so.
* * *
THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Johnson, * * * if the hearing
requirement was not met, what do you think the
Court should do here?
PETITIONER: As requested in my petition, I believe that the
determination should be vacated and that it should
go back to due-process hearing. * * * If I could
have a due-process hearing * * * [and a
determination is made against me] then I will
appeal to district court, which then it would be
the proper place, but I think that I do have to
have that hearing in order to fulfill the
requirements here in Code Section 6330.
THE COURT: All right. * * * If the hearing requirement was
met--if I decide the hearing requirement was met,
what action do you think the Court should take
here?
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011