George E. Harp - Page 7




                                        - 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