- 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