- 25 -
harmless error. As the majority correctly hold, no purpose would
be served by remanding this case for a hearing when the only
defect was the Appeals officer’s failure to provide a document
that has now been provided, and which conclusively establishes
the obligation that the Service seeks to enforce.
Because petitioner has already shown a penchant for causing
delay and taking frivolous and groundless positions, this is not
an appropriate case for imposing any sanction on respondent for
delay in furnishing the Form 4340. However, a taxpayer who could
show that he suffered genuine harm as a result of the Service’s
delay in furnishing the Form 4340 should be entitled to a remedy.
Cf. Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 207-209 (1999). For
example, a taxpayer who shows that respondent’s delay in
furnishing Form 4340 caused the taxpayer to incur additional
interest, and that no significant aspect of the delay can be
attributed to the taxpayer, might be entitled to an abatement of
interest under section 6404(e) from the date of the
administrative hearing until the Service furnishes the taxpayer
Form 4340. By providing evidence of the assessment at or before
the hearing as a matter of course, the Service satisfies section
6203, and avoids unnecessary delay and expense and any possible
sanction.
I dissented in dismay in Johnson v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011