- 6 -
b.
Liability for payment of debt, line 16.
6. The Commissioner erred in determining that I
am the person made liable for the payment of
$1,371.00[4] * * *. The error is an error of commis-
sion.
FACTS
a. Either I am or I am not the person made liable
by a particular statutory provision that describes the
person made liable or for payment, or in the alterna-
tive, I am or I am not made liable for its payment by
non-statutory law. We are left to guess at what that
law might be, but whatever the law might be, I deny
liability for want of notice.
b. The Commissioner made a determination based
upon presumption or inference rather than law and fact.
Because the notice of deficiency does not specify the
law or fact upon which determination of liability shown
on line 16 is based, I am without knowledge as to the
basis for the purported debt due to the Commissioner’s
non-disclosure of it, and therefor I am unable to frame
a more specific assignment of error.
7. I request that the amount shown on line 16 of
the form 4595A be set to zero for want of any factual
or legal basis or because the amount shown was deter-
mined by inference, presumption, wishful thinking or
some other inappropriate methodology, but not by the
application of specific law to specific fact. Revenue
Due process is not some carnival guessing game where
the law is hidden under a shell and the player may be
slapped with an outrageous penalty for failing to
detect the palming of it by a debt trickster.
On January 5, 2006, the Court issued an Order in which it
(1) noted that it had returned unfiled to petitioner on December
7, 2005, petitioner’s document that the Court received from
petitioner on December 6, 2005, and (2) ordered petitioner to
4See supra note 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011