- 6 -
that the statutory notice of deficiency was invalid because of
its faulty designation of January 2, 2002, as the last date for
filing the petition and that respondent illegally conducted a
retaliatory audit of his 1999 Federal income tax return on
account of his EEOC complaints and whistle blowing.
A hearing on respondent’s motion to dismiss was held on
March 24, 2003, in San Antonio, Texas. At that time the Court
denied respondent’s motion. Thereafter, respondent filed an
answer to the second amended petition.
On June 13, 2003, petitioner filed an original complaint in
District Court in the McAllen Division of the Southern District
of Texas. Petitioner’s original complaint asserted various
constitutional and statutory actions based upon his former
employment with the IRS and named the United States of America,
the United States Department of the Treasury, the IRS, and 17
individuals with whom he had worked or who had been involved with
the audit of his 1999 Federal income tax return as defendants.
Petitioner sought a trial by jury and damages for alleged
violations of his civil rights. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
3(...continued)
determination in his petition, amended petition, or second
amended petition. Each issue not addressed by a clear and
concise assignment of error in the petition is deemed to be
conceded. Rule 34(b)(4). Accordingly, petitioner is deemed to
have conceded the correctness of respondent’s deficiency
determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008