- 8 -
In his response opposing respondent's motion for summary
judgment, petitioner in general raises the challenges noted
above, and further contends: (i) That no "valid" notice of
deficiency was issued to him for 2000, (ii) that respondent
failed to provide the requested documents or verification that
the requirements of any applicable law or administrative
procedure had been met, (iii) that the collection action had not
been authorized as required by section 7401, and (iv) that the
notice of petitioner's right to a hearing under section 6330 was
invalid because it was not issued by the Secretary, as required
by section 6330(a)(1), or the Secretary's duly authorized
delegate, as provided in section 7701(a)(11)(B) and
(a)(12)(A)(i).7
7 Consistent with his other submissions, petitioner's
response to the motion for summary judgment contained
approximately eight pages of tax protester rhetoric, including
such arguments as:
[T]here is no statute anywhere in * * * the Internal Revenue
Code which makes Dwight Schwersensky liable for the tax
imposed in 26 U.S.C. �1 or 26 U.S.C. �871.
* * * * * * *
[N]o international maritime contract (or other contract)
exists wherein Dwight Schwersensky is in privity with the
Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is acting as a third
party debt collector under some undisclosed contract for
some undisclosed third party. * * * Commissioner has Burden
of proof that a contract exists to compel me with a "duty"
and "obligation" to perform and if no contract is produced
must provide a "liability" statute to make me "liable" [in
order] to issue a Notice of Deficiency.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011