- 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