- 9 -
(4) Clear and concise assignments of each and
every error which the petitioner alleges to have been
committed in the notice of determination. * * *
(5) Clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which the petitioner bases each assignment of
error.
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B), petitioner was entitled
to challenge at his Appeals Office hearing the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liabilities for 1994 and 1996 giving
rise to the assessments. If the validity of those underlying tax
liabilities is properly at issue, we review the matter de novo.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). For the validity
of those underlying tax liabilities to be properly at issue,
however, petitioner must comply with Rule 331. His pleading must
contain a sufficient specificity of facts so that the Court can
conduct a meaningful hearing to determine whether respondent can
proceed with the collection of those liabilities. Petitioner’s
averments make clear that he disagrees with his income tax
liabilities as shown on the returns. However, other than
claiming that the returns contain false and fraudulent
information and may be based on incorrect written advice from the
IRS, petitioner fails to specify the basis of his disagreement;
i.e., he fails to identify the items of income, deduction, or
credit, or the computations, that are incorrect. Without such
specificity, how could respondent possibly mount a defense, and
what precisely is it that the Court is to decide?
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011