John Thurman Horejs - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               A.  Summary Judgment                                                   
               Petitioner challenges the assessments made against him on              
          the ground that the notice of deficiency dated October 7, 1999,             
          is invalid.  However, the record 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) generally bars              
          petitioner from challenging the existence or amount of his                  
          underlying tax liabilities in this collection review proceeding.3           
               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 Service Center director is           
          not properly authorized to issue notices of deficiency is                   
          frivolous and groundless.  See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.             
          162, 165 (2002); Goza v. Commissioner, supra.  Further, 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              

               3  As previously discussed, on July 10, 2000, respondent               
          entered a further assessment against petitioner in the amount of            
          $869.19 reflecting the continuing accumulation of the addition to           
          tax under sec. 6651(a)(2) for 1996.  Although it is arguable                
          whether sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) barred petitioner from challenging               
          this particular assessment, petitioner did not specifically                 
          dispute the item.  Moreover, petitioner did not point to any                
          discrepancy in the record or set forth specific facts that would            
          suggest that there is a genuine issue for trial whether this item           
          was properly assessed.  See Rule 121(d).                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011