- 9 -
Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure were met as required under section
6330(c)(1); (2) the Appeals officer failed to identify the
statutes making petitioner liable for Federal income tax; and (3)
petitioner was denied the opportunity to challenge (a) the
appropriateness of the collection action and (b) the existence or
amount of his underlying tax liability.
Concurrently with the filing of his petition, petitioner
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in which he
asked the Court to “declare invalid the ‘Determination’ at issue,
since the appeals officer issued the ‘Determination’ without
having established due process as required by law.” Petitioner
attached to his motion a Memorandum of Law in which he repeated
many of the allegations in the petition. Petitioner also alleged
in the memorandum:
there is no Code Section that authorizes IRS employees
to attribute to petitioner more taxes than he reported
on his 1997 tax return. Since income taxes are based
on “self-assessment,” petitioner can only owe in taxes,
the amount reported on his 1997 tax return, which, in
this case, correctly reports “zero” * * * .
Petitioner attached to his petition and/or motion to dismiss
several documents, including (1) a copy of the aforementioned
literal transcript that had been furnished to him at the
administrative hearing on April 11, 2001, and (2) a copy of Davis
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87. In Davis, this Court
sustained the Commissioner’s determination to proceed with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011