- 18 -
2002-18 (rejecting taxpayer’s due process claims that the notice
of deficiency was invalid and finding that an adminstrative
hearing would have been futile because the taxpayers never
disputed the actual amounts of the tax), affd. 54 Fed. Appx. 254
(9th Cir. 2002). The applicable provisions of the statute and
regulations are clear, and petitioners have no basis to assert
that they have been deprived of due process because their
inquiries about requirements that they keep books and file tax
returns allegedly have gone unanswered by the Internal Revenue
Service. See secs. 6001, 6011(a); secs. 1.6001-1(a), 1.6011-1,
Income Tax Regs. Petitioners are not denied due process simply
because they are not in an article III court. See supra p. 11.
Third, respondent timely filed the summary judgment motion.
Rule 121(a) states that a motion for summary judgment “may be
made at any time commencing 30 days after the pleadings are
closed”. Respondent filed the Answer on October 12, 2001, and
the summary judgment motion more than 5 months later on March 15,
2002. The pleadings in this case were closed long before
respondent filed the summary judgment motion. See Rules 34, 36,
37, 38, 121.
Fourth, petitioners’ contentions at the hearing that
respondent’s representative who prepared and issued the notices
of deficiency lacked the legal authority to act in the name of
respondent and petitioners’ requiring proof of the delegation of
authority from respondent are frivolous and without merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011