Joseph D. and Wanda S. Lunsford - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Commissioner, supra at 121; Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733, 737-           
          738 (10th Cir. 1992); Geiselman v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 6             
          (1st Cir. 1992); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th            
          Cir. 1992); United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-1018                
          (11th Cir. 1989).  In Davis v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer            
          failed to demonstrate any irregularity in the assessment                    
          procedure, and we granted respondent’s motion for a judgment on             
          the pleadings.  We held further that Appeals hearings were                  
          intended by Congress to be informal and do not require testimony            
          under oath or the compulsory attendance of witnesses or the                 
          production of all requested documents.  Id. at 41-42.                       
               In this case, petitioners were provided with a Form 4340               
          which showed the assessment date of the taxes in question.  The             
          Appeals officer relied on the Form 4340 to verify that section              
          6203 and the applicable regulations thereunder were satisfied.              
          Petitioners have not pointed to any alleged facts or evidence to            
          suggest that there were any irregularities in the assessment                
          process.                                                                    
               The only substantive issue that petitioners have raised in             
          this judicial proceeding is whether the Appeals officer properly            
          relied on a Form 4340 to verify under section 6330(c)(1) that the           
          taxes were properly assessed.  We do not construe the instant               
          appeal as being predicated on allegations that respondent failed            
          to offer petitioners a hearing per se.  Rather, the gist of                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011