- 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