- 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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011