- 7 -
review the notice of determination for abuse of discretion. Sego
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner argues that, prior to the issuance of the notice
of deficiency, he was improperly denied his Sixth Amendment right
to “confront and cross-examine” the parties who provided
respondent with petitioner’s bank records. Further, petitioner
argues that, prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency,
respondent improperly refused to apply for technical advice on
the Sixth Amendment issue. Petitioner concludes that “The
assessments for each of the tax years in question were made and a
notice of deficiency issued in violation of Taxpayer’s due
process rights”. While petitioner characterizes his arguments
otherwise, these arguments are challenges to the notice of
deficiency and the underlying tax liability. Because he received
a notice of deficiency but did not petition the Court, petitioner
is precluded as a matter of law from challenging the validity of
the underlying tax liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, supra at
610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182; see also sec.
6330(c)(2)(B). Even if petitioner’s arguments could be properly
characterized as something other than a challenge to the
underlying tax liability, we find that petitioner’s arguments are
frivolous and groundless. “We perceive no need to refute these
arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007