- 19 -
Commissioner, supra; Kuglin v. Commissioner, supra.11
Petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the
assessment procedure that would raise a legitimate question about
the validity of the assessments or the information contained in
the literal transcripts or the Forms 4340.12 See Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 41; 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 also contends that he never received a notice and
demand for payment of his tax liabilities for 1997 and 1998. The
requirement that the Secretary issue a notice and demand for
payment is set forth in section 6303(a), which provides in
pertinent part:
11 To the extent that petitioner may still be arguing that
the Appeals officer failed to provide him with a copy of the
verification, we note that sec. 6330(c)(1) does not require that
the Appeals officer provide the taxpayer with a copy of the
verification at the administrative hearing. Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); sec. 301.6330-1(e)(1),
Proced. & Admin Regs. In any event, the Appeals officer provided
petitioner with literal transcripts of his accounts for 1997 and
1998, and respondent’s counsel provided petitioner with Forms
4340 for those years.
12 Petitioner argues that the literal transcripts are
suspect because they do not reflect the issuance of the notices
of deficiency dated June 16, 2000. However, there is nothing to
suggest that the issuance of a notice of deficiency is an event
that the Commissioner records in a transcript of a taxpayer’s
account. In any event, there is no question that deficiency
notices for 1997 and 1998 were in fact sent by respondent and
received by petitioner.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011