- 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