Randy A. Belmont - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          without prejudice on April 21, 2004.  Belmont v. United States,             
          93 AFTR 2d 2004-1992 (N.D. Ohio 2004).  Petitioner timely mailed            
          his petition to this Court on May 19, 2004, and it was filed on             
          May 25, 2004.  See sec. 6330(d)(1); sec. 301.6330-1(f), Proced. &           
          Admin. Regs.                                                                
               On March 27, 2006, petitioner filed with the Court a                   
          response to the stipulation of facts, wherein he stated that he             
          no longer subscribed to his previous tax-protester arguments.               
                                       OPINION                                        
               Because the underlying tax liability is not at issue, this             
          Court’s review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion.               
          See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.                 
          Commissioner, 114. T.C. 176, 182 (2000).  This standard requires            
          the Court to decide whether respondent’s determination was                  
          arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.               
          Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Keller v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C.             
          Memo. 2004-163.                                                             
               Throughout this case, petitioner presented tax-protester               
          arguments, including:  (1) He is not a taxpayer; (2) respondent             
          has no jurisdiction over him; and (3) respondent lacks authority            
          to assert income tax deficiencies.  Petitioner’s assertions have            
          been rejected by this Court and other courts, and “We perceive no           
          need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011