Jeffrey C. and Kelly O. Stone - Page 12

                                         12                                           
          assessment and collection of their deficiencies and contend that            
          the amount described as due in the notice of deficiency is an               
          assessment.  We disagree.  The notice of deficiency includes a              
          waiver petitioners could have signed if they had wanted to agree            
          to the immediate assessment and collection of any deficiencies.             
               Respondent has made no assessment in this case.  Respondent            
          cannot make notice and demand until respondent makes a valid                
          assessment against petitioners, and no assessment may be made               
          during the pendency of this case.  We conclude that the notice of           
          deficiency is valid.                                                        
          C.   Whether the Notice of Deficiency Is Invalid Because It Does            
               Not Contain an Original Signature in Pen and Ink                       
               Petitioners contend that the notice of deficiency is invalid           
          because the deficiency notice does not contain an original                  
          signature in pen and ink.  Petitioners point out that 8 Appeals,            
          Internal Revenue Manual, section 512, states that the notice                
               is signed in pen and ink, on behalf of the                             
               Commissioner, by the approving Appeals officer * * *.                  
               Any copies of the statutory notice letter which are                    
               used for the originals or duplicate originals should                   
               have a handwritten signature and not a facsimile or                    
               reproduced signature * * *.                                            
          Petitioners point out that the notice of deficiency:  (a) Was               
          signed by the District Director and not an Appeals officer, (b)             
          was not signed in pen and ink but with a rubber stamp, and (c)              
          was not signed under penalty of perjury, which petitioners                  
          contend is required by section 6065.  They argue that the notice            
          of deficiency is therefore invalid.  We disagree.                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011