John O. Green - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to              
          the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for             
          2001, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of                 
          Practice and Procedure.                                                     
               Respondent concedes the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax             
          of $1,199.58, and we accept that concession.  Petitioner’s                  
          principal defense to the deficiency and the remaining additions             
          to tax is that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.              
          If we should decide that issue adversely to him, petitioner’s               
          fallback position is that no “presumption of correctness”                   
          attaches to respondent’s determinations.  Petitioner also                   
          disputes the remaining additions to tax.                                    
                                     Background                                       
               This case was called from the calendar of the Court at the             
          commencement of the Court’s trial session beginning at 10 a.m. on           
          December 12, 2005, in the Casey U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk Ave.,             
          Houston, Texas.  It was set for trial at 2 p.m. on that day.  At            
          the call of the calendar, we received and filed petitioner’s                
          motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (the motion to                   
          dismiss).  The motion to dismiss consists of some 15 pages, and             
          it is supported by 10 exhibits, consisting of an additional 27              
          pages.  At the start of the trial, we received respondent’s oral            
          objection to the motion to dismiss.  We denied the motion to                
          dismiss, informing petitioner that we were doing so because we              







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

Last modified: November 10, 2007