- 3 -
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in which he
provided the following statement as his disagreement with
respondent’s determinations in the notice of deficiency:
(1) The District Director issued a Statutory Notice of
Deficiency claiming petitioner had a tax liability without
there being a statutorily procedural correct lawful tax
assessment. (2) Attached to the Notice of Deficiency, IRS
Form 4549A, income tax examination changes, line 11 states,
“Total Corrected Tax Liability.” Respondent has failed to
provide the petitioners with the internal revenue code
section or regulation that was used to calculate this total
corrected tax liability. (3) The respondent has failed to
provide the petitioners with certified assessment
information as per Internal Revenue Regulation 301.6203-1.
(4) Respondent has failed to identify the individual who
will certify to the tax adjustments the determination was
based on. Therefore, the deficiency is unenforceable as the
determination was based on unfounded evidence. (5) There
can be no meaningful administrative hearing until respondent
provides petitioner with the above requested information,
and until that time, petitioner will disagree with all of
the adjustments.
The language of the petition is very similar to the language of
the petitions in other cases before this Court in which
petitioner was involved. Petitioner appeared before the Court in
his capacity as officer of the corporate trustee of six trusts in
six separate docketed cases. In our opinion in those cases, Funk
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-169, we found that the petitions
in those cases failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Rule
34(b)(4) requires that the petition set forth “Clear and concise
assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges
to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination
of the deficiency or liability.” Rule 34(b)(5) requires that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011