Shade D. Coleman III and Maria M. Coleman - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);  Goza v. Commissioner,              
          supra.  Section 6330(d) provides for judicial review of the                 
          administrative determination in the Tax Court or a Federal                  
          District Court, as may be appropriate.                                      
               Petitioners challenge the assessments entered against them             
          on the ground that the notice of deficiency dated October 15,               
          1999, is invalid.  However, the record shows that petitioners               
          received the notice of deficiency and disregarded the opportunity           
          to file a petition for redetermination with the Court.  It                  
          follows that section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioners from                    
          challenging the existence or amount of their underlying tax                 
          liability in this collection review proceeding.                             
               Even if petitioners were permitted to challenge the validity           
          of the notice of deficiency, petitioners’ argument that the                 
          notice is invalid because respondent’s District Director is not             
          properly authorized to issue notices of deficiency is frivolous             
          and groundless.  See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 167              
          (2002); Goza v. Commissioner, supra.  As the Court of Appeals for           
          the Fifth Circuit has remarked:  “We perceive no need to refute             
          these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of               
          precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some            
          colorable merit.”  Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417               
          (5th Cir. 1984).                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011