Dennis M. Mudd - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          Goza v. Commissioner, supra.  Section 6330(d) provides for                  
          judicial review of the administrative determination in the Tax              
          Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.                   
          Petitioner first contends that he was denied the opportunity                
          to challenge the existence or amount of his tax liabilities for             
          the years in question.  The record in this case shows otherwise.            
               Respondent summarily assessed the underlying taxes for 1992            
          to 1997 and 1999 inasmuch as petitioner reported such tax                   
          liabilities on his tax returns.  Sec. 6201(a)(1).  Consequently,            
          respondent did not issue notices of deficiency to petitioner for            
          the years in question.  However, during the administrative                  
          hearing, the Appeals officer invited petitioner to show him “that           
          the underlying tax is incorrect”.  Rather than offer proof                  
          challenging the existence or amount of the tax liabilities,                 
          petitioner responded by demanding that the Appeals officer cite             
          the statutory provision making petitioner liable for Federal                
          income taxes.  The Appeals officer declined to do so.                       
               The record also shows that petitioner’s position regarding             
          his liability for Federal income taxes is frivolous and                     
          groundless.  In particular, in his objection to respondent’s                
          motion, petitioner asserts:  “Money that is earned while engaged            
          in my God given and Constitutional RIGHT to life liberty and the            
          pursuit of happiness is not a taxable source of income unless               
          apportioned by the States.”  As the Court of Appeals for the                






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011