- 9 -
• Verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met.
Transcripts of any kind are not accept-
able. And any claims that the court
have held that an unsigned, computer
printout satisfies the legal require-
ments will no [sic] be acceptable. That
an Appeals Officer “shall hew to the
law”, in accordance with Reg. 601.106(f)
that there is no Treasury Regulation
that state [sic] the appeals officers
“shall hew to court decisions”;
• Proof of Notice and Demand and proof
that it is a statutory notice and demand
via a Treasury Decision or Regulation;
• There is no underlying liability -- That
“The index of the IR Code lists some 60
taxes under the caption “Liability for
tax”; however he can find no entry for
“income taxes”;
• One (nonsensical) excuse the appeals
officer might offer is that the underly-
ing liability is not at issue due to the
fact that the taxpayer received a Notice
of Deficiency. The notice is invalid
since it was prepared and sent by a
Service Center Employee and it must be
sent and determined by the Secretary
unless there is a delegation authority
to do so IRC Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) does not
apply;
• Citation from Federal Crop Insurance v.
Merrill, 332 U.S. 380;
• Disputes the existence of an Income Tax
Liability -- The Tax Court not being a
court of law -- has no jurisdiction to
consider such a question;
• There is no statute requiring him to pay
the income taxes;
* * * * * * *
None of the above arguments are relevant for purposes
of the hearing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011