- 15 -
Marvin Nelson, Inc. v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1543, 1547 (9th
Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-23.
Petitioners cite five published opinions in the parts of
their brief dealing with the issue of whether the notice of
deficiency was mailed. In United States v. Williams, 161 F.
Supp. 158 (E.D.N.Y. 1958), one of the opinions that petitioners
cite, there were stipulations about numerous documents but none
about a notice of deficiency. See id. at 159. The opinion in
Williams relates that Government counsel specifically argued on
brief that the Commissioner was not required to send a notice of
deficiency. See id. at 160. The District Court rejected that
argument and ruled for the taxpayer. See id. at 160-161. In
United States v. Ball, 326 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1964), another
opinion cited by petitioners, the parties thereto stipulated that
there had been an assessment of income tax followed by a notice
and demand for payment under section 6303. See id. at 899-900.
They also stipulated that “Said assessment, with interest
thereon, as allowed by law, remains due and owing to the United
States of America.” Id. at 902 n.5. The District Court granted
summary judgment to the Government. On appeal, the taxpayer’s
beneficiaries8 raised the question of whether a notice of
8The Government sued to enforce its assessment lien against
the cash surrender values of two of the taxpayer’s life insurance
policies. The taxpayer had gone to Mexico and stayed there. The
appellants were beneficiaries under the policies. See United
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011