- 8 -
stated that the Court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin
assessment and collection because no deficiency within the
meaning of section 6211(a) had been asserted.
On April 15, 2002, petitioner filed a response to
respondent’s response to petitioner’s motion for administrative
and litigation costs. Petitioner’s response states that
respondent’s position was not substantially justified because
respondent sent the notices of deficiency to incorrect or
“fictitious” addresses.
On April 22, 2002, petitioner filed an objection to
respondent’s response to petitioner’s motion to restrain
assessment and collection. Petitioner said she never received a
notice of an amount owed for 1993 and 1994; petitioner asserted
respondent withheld the notices as a way to collect penalties and
interest.
On May 17, 2002, the Court denied petitioner’s motion to
restrain assessment and collection, as supplemented. In denying
petitioner’s motion, we stated that our jurisdiction to enjoin
assessment and collection is limited to matters over which we
have jurisdiction. We concluded that because we lack
jurisdiction of the matters set forth in the petition filed in
this case, we have no authority to enjoin the assessments
pertaining to petitioner’s 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994
taxable years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011