- 37 -
3. Rationale for Holding Is Unpersuasive
In tandem, the majority’s holdings in Lunsford I and the
majority opinion herein are groundless assertions of jurisdiction
and authority. The only justification for the holding herein is
that it would be a waste of time to conduct a hearing. This
Court is not prescient. Although petitioners’ Form 12153,
petition, and trial memorandum focus on one issue--the
assessments, only petitioners know what issues might be raised at
a hearing, particularly in light of the fact they are no longer
represented by the disbarred attorney who wrote the documents
submitted to the Court.
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), taxpayers “may raise at
the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax”.
(Emphasis added.) The Appeals officer, in the letter which
allegedly scheduled the hearing, wrote: “Appeals cannot
consider” the validity of the assessments. To the contrary,
pursuant to section 6330(c)(1), the Appeals officer must consider
the validity of the assessments. Form 4340 is presumptive
evidence of a valid assessment, Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d
1440, 1446 (9th Cir. 1993), but the presumption is rebuttable.
Although the Appeals Office’s reliance on such form is not an
abuse of discretion in a case in which the taxpayer makes no
showing of irregularity, Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 41, a
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011