Henry Nino - Page 3

                                         -3-                                          
               Petitioner relied on the following as the basis of his case:           
               (a) The Examiner, who is the Revenue Officer moved a                   
               collection activity in violation to Title 26, CFR part                 
               601.104                                                                
               (b) The Technical Services Officer knows and/or should                 
               have known that a non statutory collection activity is                 
               demonstrative of an inappropriate collection activity.                 
               (Title 26 of USCA Chapter 64, Subchapter D)                            
               (c) The Examiner’s Tax Payer Delinquency Investigation                 
               substantiates it has moved an inappropriate                            
               collection activity, that stands in                                    
               contradistinction to the Paper Work Reduction Act.                     
               (Title 26 CFR part 601.101)                                            
               (d) The Technical Services Territory Manager is                        
               attempting to perfect an inappropriate collection                      
               action, as it is unwilling, and/or unable to                           
               produce a lawfully filed, and/or legally executed TAX                  
               RETURN. (Title 26 USCA Chapter 63, Subchapter A)                       
               Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to           
          state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  On October 21,             
          2005, the Court ordered petitioner to file an amended petition              
          “in which petitioner sets forth with specificity each error                 
          petitioner alleges was made by respondent in the determination of           
          the deficiency and additions to tax, and separate statements of             
          every fact upon which petitioner bases the assignment of errors.”           
          On November 2, 2005, petitioner filed with this Court an amended            
          petition in which he listed the following assignments of error of           
          respondent:                                                                 
               a.) The respondent failed to substantiate a lawful                     
               collection of information for the issuance of                          
               statutory notice of deficiency.                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011