Charles Raymond Wheeler - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               unlawful takings from our God given, constitutionally                  
               protected rights to the property of our labor.                         
          The Court agrees with respondent that this correspondence, and              
          the assertions raised therein, are frivolous.                               
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.   Contentions of the Parties                                             
               Petitioner argues that he does not owe any tax or addition             
          thereto for the 1994 through 2001 taxable years because: (1) The            
          statutory notices of deficiency issued to him by respondent were            
          not valid; (2) the notices of deficiency for the years in issues            
          were not signed by an authorized signer;4 (3) the Form 4549,                

               4 The notices of deficiency for 1994 through 2000 were                 
          signed by Timothy A. Towns, and the notice of deficiency for 2001           
          was signed by Thomas D. Mathews.  Both Mr. Towns and Mr. Mathews            
          signed the notices on behalf of the “Compliance Center, Ogden               
          Service Center”.  Under the Internal Revenue Manual, the                    
          authority “to sign and send to the taxpayer by registered or                
          certified mail, any notice of deficiency” is delegated to, among            
          other individuals, “Directors, Customer Service Centers” and the            
          later individuals may redelegate the authority “directly to                 
          selected individuals within their functional area.”  I.R.S.                 
          Deleg. Order No. 77 (Rev. 28) (May 17, 1996).  This delegation              
          order applied to Mr. Towns and Mr. Mathews.  See also discussion            
          infra p. 9.  Petitioner did not provide any evidence that Mr.               
          Towns or Mr. Mathews was not an individual to whom the authority            
          to sign notices of deficiency could have been delegated.                    
          Generally, the Court does not look behind the notice of                     
          deficiency to determine or examine the evidence used, the                   
          propriety of the Commissioner’s motives in making the                       
          determinations, or to question the administrative policies and              
          procedures leading to a determination.  Kantor v. Commissioner,             
          998 F.2d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. and revg. on another             
          issue T.C. Memo. 1990-380; Pasternak v. Commissioner, 990 F.2d              
          893, 898 (6th Cir. 1993), affg. Donahue v. Commissioner, T.C.               
          Memo. 1991-181; Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62               
          T.C. 324, 327 (1974); Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011