- 9 -
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
liability in this collection review proceeding.
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 these
arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737
F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Suffice it to say that
petitioner is a taxpayer subject to the Federal income tax, see
secs. 1(a)(1), 7701(a)(1), (14), and that compensation for labor
or services rendered constitutes income subject to the Federal
income tax, sec. 61(a)(1); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d
1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
We likewise reject petitioner’s argument that the Appeals
officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures
were met as required by section 6330(c)(1). The record shows
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011