- 5 -
matters addressed in respondent’s motion using an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
In the petition, petitioner alleged that (1) “the IRS failed
to make an assessment in accordance with the requirements of the
IR Code and underlying regulations” and that (2) “the procedural
due process requirements were not met, since the IRS did not
conduct a fair and impartial hearing before an impartial decision
maker.” Petitioner did not allege in the petition (1) any facts
to support petitioner’s allegation that he did not receive “a
fair and impartial hearing before an impartial decision maker” or
(2) any irregularity in respondent’s assessment procedure with
respect to petitioner’s taxable year 1995.
In his response to respondent’s motion (petitioner’s re-
sponse) and in his affidavit in support of that response (peti-
tioner’s affidavit), petitioner abandons the allegations set
forth in the petition. Instead, he advances the types of argu-
ments and contentions that we find to be frivolous and
3(...continued)
to that liability in the petition. Consequently, petitioner is
deemed to have conceded the underlying tax liability for 1995.
See Rule 331(b)(4); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 186
(2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011