- 5 -
79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). When a motion for summary judgment is
made and properly supported, the adverse party may not rest upon
mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Rule 121(d).
Petitioner contends that respondent’s Form 1040, U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, fails to display a valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) number as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. sections 3501-3520 (2000).
Consequently, petitioner contends, the Court should set aside the
notice of determination, because the Appeals settlement officer
did not verify that the requirements of the PRA had been
satisfied.2 Petitioner’s contention is without merit.
Section 6330(c)(1) requires, in the case of any hearing
conducted with respect to a proposed collection action, that the
Appeals officer “obtain verification from the Secretary that the
2 In his response to respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, petitioner does not renew the argument, alluded to in
his petition, that he is entitled to relief because the
“exemption amount is unspecified in law”. We deem petitioner to
have abandoned any such argument. In any event, insofar as we
are able to discern from the petition, it would appear that in
making this assignment of error petitioner sought to associate
himself with the recurring tax-protester argument that sec.
151(d) inadequately defines the exemption amount to permit a
taxpayer to be penalized for noncompliance. Such an argument is
frivolous. See, e.g., Pond v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-255,
affd. 211 Fed. Appx. 749 (10th Cir. 2007).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007