- 2 -
respect to P’s taxable year 1996. Held, further, for
purposes of complying with sec. 6330(c)(1), I.R.C., it
was not an abuse of discretion for A to have relied on
Form 4340 to verify R’s assessment with respect to P’s
taxable year 1996. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
35 (2000). Held, further, any inability of P before or
at R’s Appeals Office hearing to examine Forms 23C and
4340 and to cross-examine witnesses did not constitute
an abuse of discretion. See Nestor v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 162 (2002); Davis v. Commissioner, supra.
Held, further, R did not abuse R’s discretion in deter-
mining in the notice of determination to proceed with
collection with respect to P’s taxable year 1996.
Held, further: P is required to pay a penalty
under sec. 6673(a), I.R.C.
Thomas W. Roberts, pro se.
Joanne B. Minsky, for respondent.
OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on the
parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment.1 We shall
1Both petitioner and respondent incorrectly characterized
their respective motions as motions for summary judgment. In
those motions, the parties address only the following two of the
three allegations of error in the petition:
a) The appeals officer failed to get proper verifica-
tion from the Secretary that the service met the
requirements of any applicable law or administra-
tive procedure as required by �6330(c)(1), 26 CFR
�301.6320-[1]T(e)(1) and 26 CFR �301.6330-
[1]T(e)(1).
b) The appeals officer failed to furnish requested
documentation prior to the hearing and refused to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011