- 6 -
* * * the Secretary has no authority to assess a different
figure than the “$0.00" which petitioner assessed himself as
owing for 1996 subtitle A taxes, the Secretary had no
authority to determine that there was a deficiency in
respect of subtitle A taxes, pursuant to �6212. Therefore,
the “notice of deficiency” was a legal nullity for that
reason, as well as because there is no evidence in the
record to establish that the person who sent the document on
behalf of the Secretary was delegated to do so by a
delegation order published in the Federal Register as
required by 5 USC �553 and 44 USC �1505.
Discussion
Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any
material fact with respect to this collection action and that
respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of
petitioner’s outstanding tax for 1996 should be sustained as a
matter of law.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The Court may grant
summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact
and a decision may be rendered as matter of law. Rule 121(b);
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd.
17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753,
754 (1988). We conclude that there are no genuine issues of
material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent’s
motion, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
When, as is the case here, the taxpayer received a notice of
deficiency and did not petition the Court, the validity of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011