-7- with the USC Title 26 taxing statute that respondent relied on to calculate any claimed Determination. (6) Respondent claims a Determination, but has failed to provide petitioner with any certified facts or evidence. (7) Respondents Notice of Determination is null and void as it is based on hearsay facts and evidence. (8) Petitioner has been denied a meaningful administrative hearing where certified facts or evidence from respondent was provided. (9) Statute of limitation for tax year 1996 has expired. (10) Petitioners declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, is attached and made part of this matter. We classify petitioners’ arguments in two manners. The first category pertains to the existence or validity of the underlying tax liability. The second category pertains to the procedure by which respondent has assessed petitioners’ tax liability and/or reviewed the validity of it. As to the first category, it is indisputable that petitioners have received a notice of deficiency for 1996 and that they had an opportunity to dispute in this Court respondent’s determination set forth in that notice. They chose not to dispute those determinations timely. See sec. 6213(a) (notices of deficiency addressed to taxpayers inside the United States may be challenged by those taxpayers generally by filing a petition with this Court within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed.). As a result, we reject this first type of argument as untimely and advanced improperly. We hold that petitioners are precluded from disputing their underlying tax liability in this proceeding. Sego v. Commissioner, supra.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011