- 13 -
in Goza had received a notice of 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.
Based upon our review of the record in this case, we hold
that there is no dispute as to a material fact and that
respondent is entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of
law.
The record shows that petitioner wrote to respondent on
October 30, 1991, and June 1, 1992, and acknowledged receiving
the notices of deficiency for 1987 and 1989, respectively.
Petitioner failed to affirmatively deny that he authored these
letters. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000).
The record also shows that respondent mailed duplicate
original notices of deficiency for 1990 through 1992 by certified
mail to petitioner’s last known address, including the N. Central
address, the Richardson Heights address, and the DalRich Village
address.7 Although petitioner did not write to respondent and
acknowledge receipt of the notice of deficiency for 1990 through
1992, respondent has no record that such notice was ever returned
7 In addition, a copy of the notice of deficiency was mailed
to Mr. Kotmair.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011