Kelly V. Kaeckell - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          validity of the assessments or the information contained in the             
          transcripts of account.  See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35,            
          40-41 (2000); Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48.                     
          Accordingly, we hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the                 
          verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1).  Cf. Nicklaus v.            
          Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).                                 
               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.                
          These issues are now deemed conceded.  Rule 331(b)(4).  In the              
          absence of a justiciable issue for review, we conclude that                 
          respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining            
          the notice of determination dated May 9, 2001.                              
               Finally, we mention section 6673(a)(1), which authorizes the           
          Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a               
          penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that                   
          proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer              
          primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such                 
          proceeding is frivolous or groundless.  The Court has indicated             
          its willingness to impose such penalties in collection review               
          cases.  Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000).  Although             
          we will not impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section              
          6673(a)(1) in the present case, we admonish petitioner that the             
          Court shall consider imposing such a penalty should he return to            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011