- 19 -
accuracy-related penalty determined in the notice of deficiency.
A notice of balance due constitutes a notice and demand for
payment within the meaning of section 6303(a). See, e.g., Hughes
v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992); Newman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-135; Weishan v. Commissioner,
supra; see also Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th
Cir. 1993). Notably, petitioner attached copies of the notices
of balance due dated May 8, 2000, as exhibits to his Amended
Objection to respondent’s motion.7
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.8
These issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b)(4). In the
absence of a valid issue for review, we conclude that respondent
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the notice
of determination dated September 21, 2001.
7 We also reject petitioner’s argument that notice and
demand for payment was not in accord with a Treasury decision
issued in 1914 that required a Form 17 to be used for such
purpose. See Tapio v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-141.
8 Petitioner stated to the Appeals officer at the
administrative hearing on July 30, 2001, that he would pay in
full his outstanding liabilities if the Appeals officer “would
just point out the statute and regulation that requires me to pay
the tax at issue.” The statutory citations sought by petitioner
are identified supra on p. 16 of this opinion.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011