Augustin Bolsover Jombo - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               more intrusive than necessary.  The file indicates that                
               the legal requirements pursuant to filing a lien were                  
               met and that there was no improper action in such                      
               filing.  You had no challenge to the appropriateness of                
               the collection action, except your assertion that you                  
               do not owe the tax.  Since the Tax Court and Appeals                   
               have previously determined that the tax is owed, the                   
               filing of the notice of Federal tax lien is appropriate                
               to protect the Government’s interest.                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               As we understand petitioner’s position, he is challenging              
          the respective underlying tax liabilities for his taxable years             
          1993, 1994, and 1995.1  With respect to petitioner’s taxable                
          years 1993 and 1994, petitioner received a notice of deficiency,            
          filed a petition with respect to that notice, thereby commencing            
          the case at docket No. 2446-98, and did not appear at the trial             
          in that case which the Court had set for trial on April 12, 1999,           
          in Washington, D.C.  As a consequence, the Court granted respon-            
          dent’s oral motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution in the case           
          at docket No. 2446-98 and entered an Order of Dismissal and                 
          Decision against petitioner in that case.  Thereafter, the Court            
          denied petitioner’s motion to vacate that Order.  With respect to           
          petitioner’s taxable year 1995, petitioner received a notice of             

               1Specifically, petitioner argues that he has shown in an-              
          other case that he commenced in the Court with respect to his               
          taxable year 1996 that he is not liable for tax not only for that           
          year, but also for 1993, 1994, and 1995.  We note that after the            
          trial in the instant case the Court issued an Opinion with                  
          respect to petitioner’s taxable year 1996 in the other case on              
          which petitioner is relying, in which we sustained respondent’s             
          determinations with respect to that year.  See Jombo v. Commis-             
          sioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-273.                                                





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011