Jerome Griggs Beery - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

               Both determination notices issued to petitioner after the              
          appeals hearing stated that petitioner had not offered any                  
          collection alternatives with respect to the liabilities at issue            
          and noted further, as pointed out to petitioner at the hearing,             
          that he was "precluded from challenging the merits of the tax               
          liability since you have already had an opportunity to and in               
          fact did challenge the liability in Tax Court."  The                        
          determination notices stated that petitioner's position at the              
          hearing was that there were no valid Tax Court decisions with               
          respect to his liability and since petitioner had previously                
          filed for bankruptcy, "the Service could collect from the                   
          bankruptcy trustee".                                                        
               At the time the petition for review of respondent's                    
          determination was filed, petitioner's legal residence was Los               
          Alamos, New Mexico.                                                         
               Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a            
          claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 40.                       
               A hearing was held on respondent's motion, at which                    
          petitioner appeared and testified.                                          
               The record shows that the two notices of deficiency referred           
          to earlier were received by petitioner and his spouse.                      
          Petitioner and his spouse filed a petition with this Court, at              
          docket No. 26995-93, challenging the notice of deficiency                   
          relating to their 1989, 1990, and 1991 tax years.  The case was             





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011