- 15 -
review of the administrative determination in the Tax Court or a
Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.
A. Summary Judgment
Petitioner challenges the assessment made against him on the
ground that the notice of deficiency dated December 8, 1999, is
invalid. However, the record conclusively shows that petitioner
received the notice of deficiency and disregarded the opportunity
to file a petition for redetermination with this Court. See sec.
6213(a). It follows that section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioner
from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying tax
liabilities in this collection review proceeding. See Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002).
Even if petitioner were permitted to challenge the validity
of the notice of deficiency, petitioner’s 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 id.; Goza v. Commissioner, supra; see also
Kellogg v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 167, 172 (1987), and the
statutory, regulatory, and case citations therein regarding a
District Director’s authority to issue notices of deficiency;
Lillis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-142 (same), affd. without
published opinion 740 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, as the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive
no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011