- 6 -
respondent agree that petitioner’s net tax due is $1,100, this
argument does not require any further discussion.
Next, petitioner claims that he did not see the first page
of the decision when he signed the decision at the calendar call
because the document he signed was not a stapled 2-page document.
Petitioner asserts that he did not see the first page of the
decision, on which the deficiency amount was shown, until he
received the decision by mail after it had been entered by the
Court. Even if we accepted this implausible assertion as true,
it would not warrant our vacating the decision. Even if
petitioner did not see the first page of the decision when he
signed the decision, it was petitioner’s responsibility to know
and understand what he was signing. The second page of the
decision has a number “2” at the top, and the first words
appearing on that page refer to “the above deficiency”. Clearly,
this is the second page of a document, and petitioner was free to
refuse to sign it if he was not presented with both pages.
Petitioner next asserts that his signature on the decision
was “coerced, a product of threats and harassment” by Mr. Friday.
Petitioner’s assertions of threats and harassment are unsupported
even by his own version of the facts surrounding the settlement.
Lastly, petitioner raises concerns that the interest he will
owe will not be computed correctly, and he objects to his owing
interest for the period between the date he filed his 1999 income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011