Alfred J. Martin - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          respect of the deficiency” on our docket and suspended the                  
          limitations period.14                                                       
               B.  Failure To Attach the Notice                                       
               Petitioner further contends that because Mr. Berg attached             
          only Amilu’s notice to the petition, the petition was not filed             
          with respect to petitioner’s share of the joint deficiency.  As a           
          result, petitioner asserts, the petition did not confer                     
          jurisdiction upon this Court and failed to suspend the                      
          limitations period.15                                                       

               14We note that petitioner’s position on this issue is also             
          unacceptable from a policy perspective for several reasons.                 
          First, the petition in Martin I was pending in this Court for               
          more than a decade before petitioner moved to dismiss it, by                
          which time, according to his theory, the assessment period had              
          run.  Disabling the assessment and collection of tax in that                
          fashion is clearly not what Congress intended.  See O’Neill v.              
          United States, 44 F.3d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).  Second, a                 
          strong presumption of authority is afforded to counsel when                 
          filing a petition in this Court.  See Rule 33; Gray v.                      
          Commissioner, 73 T.C. 639, 646-647 (1980).                                  
               15We have already rejected this argument as it relates to              
          our jurisdiction in a prior proceeding involving petitioner and             
          respondent that arose out of Martin I.  In Rothhammer v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-46, petitioner unsuccessfully                 
          sought litigation costs under sec. 7430.  Petitioner contended              
          that Mr. Berg’s failure to attach the notice, as required by Rule           
          34(b)(8), deprived this Court of jurisdiction.  Petitioner cited            
          cases, as he does now, in which the taxpayers’ original petitions           
          failed to name certain taxpayers or include all tax years for               
          which the Commissioner made a determination.  We found that, in             
          contrast to the petitions filed in those cases, the petition Mr.            
          Berg filed named petitioner and clearly contested petitioner’s              
          1980 income tax deficiency.  Accordingly, in Rothhammer, we                 
          rejected petitioner’s argument.                                             
               On brief, respondent discussed our decision in Rothhammer              
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011