- 6 -
deficiency, yet failed to file a petition for redetermination
with the Court. When the taxpayer subsequently attempted to use
the Court's collection review procedure as a forum to assert
frivolous and groundless constitutional arguments against the
Federal income tax, the Court dismissed the petition for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As was the case in Goza v. Commissioner, supra, it is
evident that petitioner received a notice of deficiency for 1995
and 1996, failed to file a timely petition for redetermination
with the Court challenging such notice pursuant to section
6213(a), and now is attempting to contest his underlying tax
liabilities for those years in this collection review proceeding.
Under the circumstances, section 6330(c)(2)(B) clearly provides
that petitioner is barred from contesting the existence or amount
of his tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996 before the Appeals
Office. Petitioner failed to raise a spousal defense or to
challenge respondent's proposed levy by offering a less intrusive
means for collecting the taxes for 1995 and 1996 in either the
Appeals Office hearing or in his petition for review filed with
the Court. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). These issues are now deemed
conceded. See Rule 331(b)(4). In the absence of a justiciable
issue for review with respect to the taxable years 1995 and 1996,
we shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011