- 16 -
during the administrative process shows that respondent sent
petitioner a notice of balance due on the same date that
respondent made assessments against petitioner for the tax and
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 a copy of the notice of
balance due dated February 26, 2001, as an exhibit to his
petition.
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.7
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 October 16, 2001.
7 Petitioner stated to the Appeals officer at the
administrative hearing on Oct. 4, 2001, that “I brought my
checkbook with me, I will write you a check today” if the Appeals
officer would only “show me the law that requires me to pay the
tax.” The statutory citations sought by petitioner are
identified supra p. 13 of this opinion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011