- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011