- 5 -
that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative
procedure have been met”; (4) the Appeals officer “could not
produce any tax return * * * that could have served as the basis
for any such alleged assessment”; (5) she had a right to
challenge the existence of the underlying tax liability because
she did not receive “a valid notice of deficiency”; and (6) there
was no statute establishing an “underlying liability”.
Contemporaneously with filing the petition in this case,
petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,
contending that the determination in this case was invalid as a
matter of law because she did not receive a proper hearing.
Respondent objected to petitioner’s motion to dismiss. In
Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Objections to Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, petitioner asserted:
(1.) Respondent argues (7) that Petitioner received a
valid Statutory Notice of Deficiency. That Notices
received by Petitioner were invalid.
Before I did anything with respect to the
“Notice,” I first established whether or not it was
sent pursuant to law, whether or not it had the “force
and effect of law,” and whether Mr. Cox had any
authority to send me the notice in the first place.
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was denied; the Court found that
the determination letter was valid for purposes of invoking the
Court’s jurisdiction in this case.
Prior to trial, respondent sent to petitioner Forms 4340,
certified May 21, 2001. Prior to trial, petitioner filed a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011