Anthony M. Davich - Page 15

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011