-8-
information. Petitioners have not demonstrated in this
proceeding any irregularity in the assessment procedure that
would raise a question about the validity of the assessment or
the information contained in the transcript of account. See Mann
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. We hold that the assessment
made by respondent is valid. See Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-51; see also Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-53.
Petitioners next argue that the Appeals officer failed to
obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of
all applicable laws and administrative procedures were met as
required by section 6330(c)(1). We disagree. Section 6330(c)(1)
does not require the Commissioner to rely upon a particular
document (e.g., the summary record itself rather than transcripts
of account) to satisfy this verification requirement. Kuglin v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-88. Petitioners received a transcript of their account, and
the Appeals officer reviewed the transcript at the hearing. The
use of computer-generated transcripts of account is a valid
verification that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met. Roberts v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 365 (2002); Mudd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-204;
Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-81; Mann v. Commissioner,
supra. We hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011