- 10 -
for which Mr. Carey was the administrator. The USPS had
attempted to deliver the notices of deficiency to that address on
two separate business days, and Mr. Carey had received previous
correspondence that the Commissioner had mailed to him at that
address.3
Petitioners also argue that the proposed levy is invalid
because the Commissioner failed to give them at the hearing the
requested documents concerning the validity of the assessment.
We disagree that any such failure by the Commissioner invalidates
the proposed levy. As we recently observed in Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002): “Section 6330(c)(1) does
not require the Appeals officer to give the taxpayer a copy of
the verification that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met.” Moreover, although
petitioners did not receive the Form 4340 at the hearing, they
did receive it contemporaneously with their trial in this Court
and have not established in this proceeding any irregularity in
the assessment procedure that would raise a question about the
3 Even if petitioners’ underlying tax liability for 1996 was
at issue, petitioners have failed to prove that respondent’s
determination of their income tax liability was in error. In
addition, respondent has introduced enough evidence to support
his determination as to the accuracy-related penalty under sec.
6662(a), and petitioners have failed to disprove that
determination. See also Residential Mgmt. Servs. Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-297, wherein the Court held:
(1) Income that petitioners reported and argued for 1995 was
attributable to Residential was assignable to them, and (2)
petitioners were liable for an accuracy-related penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011