- 2 -
Background
The record reveals or the parties do not dispute the
following:
Petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for
2003. By notice of deficiency dated June 7, 2005, respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2003 tax on the basis of
a substitute for return that respondent prepared; in the notice,
respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for
additions to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and
6654(a). Petitioner received the notice of deficiency but did
not petition the Tax Court with respect to it.
On October 24, 2005, respondent assessed petitioner’s 2003
tax and additions thereto and issued him a notice of balance due
and demand for payment. On January 30, 2006, respondent mailed
petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to
Hearing for 2003 as required under sections 6330 and 6331. On
1(...continued)
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Except in limited circumstances not relevant here, Rule 54
generally requires motions to be separately stated and not joined
together; we have permitted this joined motion to be filed in the
interests of judicial administration. See Stewart v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 111 n.2 (2006). The Court has
proposed amending Rule 54 to clarify that motions should not be
joined together “Unless otherwise permitted by the Court”. Press
Release dated Jan. 16, 2007, p. 22.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007