- 14 -
of deficiency); Rennie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-296
(taxpayer’s denial of receiving “legal” notice of deficiency did
not mean that taxpayer failed to receive notice of deficiency);
Schmith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-252 (taxpayer’s denial
of receiving “valid” notice of deficiency did not mean that
taxpayer failed to receive notice of deficiency); see also Nestor
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002) (section
6330(c)(2)(B) bars a taxpayer from challenging the existence or
amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability in a collection
review proceeding if the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency
and disregarded the opportunity to file a petition for
redetermination with this Court).
Rule 121(d) provides in relevant part as follows:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
such party’s pleading, but such party’s response, by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not
so respond, then a decision, if appropriate, may be
entered against such party.
In his petition, petitioner does not indicate on what basis
he challenges “the existence of the underlying liability”. His
failure to do so is contrary to Rule 331(b)(5), requiring “Clear
and concise lettered statements of the facts on which the
petitioner bases each assignment of error.” Cf. Parker v.
Commissioner, 117 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1997); White v.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011