- 2 -
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for
summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121. The motion arises
in the context of a petition filed in response to a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 that respondent sent to petitioner. At the time the
petition was filed, petitioner resided in Tarzana, California.
Background
The parties agreed to a stipulation of facts, and petitioner
provided testimony at an evidentiary hearing. The parties do not
disagree on any of the material facts in this case.
Respondent examined petitioner’s 2002 Federal income tax
return and proposed changes. Respondent sent a statutory notice
of deficiency to petitioner for 2002 on September 3, 2004.
Petitioner agrees that he received a “letter” in 2004 disallowing
dependency exemptions for two children. Petitioner stated that
he responded to the notice of deficiency by writing a letter that
he sent to “Someplace in Washington, DC”, but “It was a couple of
days late.” Petitioner agrees that he filed an untimely petition
that was dismissed by the Court.1
1Court records show that Shlomo Limor, in docket No. 24434-
04, filed a petition on Dec. 20, 2004, that respondent moved to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely petition, and
that the motion was granted on Apr. 1, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007