William G. Koenig - Page 14




                                       - 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