- 7 -
was made against a person for purposes of sections 6320 and 6330.
In particular, in Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 40-41, we held:
Generally, courts have held that Form 4340
provides at least presumptive evidence that a tax has
been validly assessed under section 6203. See Huff v.
United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1445 (9th Cir. 1993);
Hefti v. IRS, 8 F.3d 1169, 1172 (7th Cir. 1993); Farr
v. United States, 990 F.2d 451, 454 (9th Cir. 1993);
Geiselman v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.
1992); Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 994
(Fed. Cir. 1991); United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d
1015, 1017-1018 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v.
Miller, 318 F.2d 637, 638-639 (7th Cir. 1963).
“Certificates of Assessments and Payments are
‘routinely used to prove that tax assessment has in
fact been made.’ They are ‘presumptive proof of a valid
assessment.’” Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733, 737
(10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Geiselman v. United States,
supra at 6). The Form 4340 reflecting petitioner’s
income tax liabilities for the years in issue indicates
that those tax liabilities were properly assessed and
remain unpaid. Petitioner has not demonstrated any
irregularity in the assessment procedure that would
raise a question about the validity of the assessments.
We therefore hold that it was not an abuse of
discretion for Appeals to rely on a Form 4340 in this
case for the purpose of complying with section
6330(c)(1).
Cf. Nicklaus v. Commissioner, supra at 120-121.
As in Davis v. Commissioner, supra, and Nicklaus v.
Commissioner, supra, petitioner has not shown, or even alleged,
any irregularity in respondent’s assessment procedures, including
the preparation of Form 23-C, that would raise a question as to
the validity of the assessments in this case. Petitioner merely
wants to assure himself that the Forms 23-C were properly
executed. However, consistent with the precedents cited above,
we hold that respondent is not required to produce the Forms 23-C
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011