Daniel Hubbard - Page 11

                                       - 10 -                                         
          constituted a deliberate refusal of delivery and repudiation                
          of his opportunity to contest the liability determined in                   
          the notice of deficiency.  The provisions in section                        
          6330(c)(2)(B) limiting in collection due process cases the                  
          right to contest the underlying tax liability are clearly                   
          designed to prevent the creation of a prepayment remedy in                  
          cases like this one.  The validity of the underlying tax                    
          liability therefore cannot be properly raised by petition in                
          this case.                                                                  
               We will not spend time discussing petitioner’s Cross-                  
          Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Tax Court lacks                   
          jurisdiction “to address the particular notice of deficiency                
          upon which this Docket is based.”  In his motion, petitioner                
          continues on for pages making spurious and ridiculous                       
          arguments in support of his motion.  We will not waste our                  
          time addressing them as they are meritless, timeworn                        
          protester arguments that have been rejected and discredited                 
          by this Court and the other Federal courts.  For this                       
          reason, petitioner’s motion will be denied.                                 
               Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on                      
          August 11, 2005, will be granted and respondent’s                           
          administrative determination to proceed with collection                     
          against petitioner will be sustained.  Petitioner’s Motion                  
          to Dismiss filed on November 14, 2005, will be denied.                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011