- 7 -
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
According to petitioner, petitioner’s “motion addresses only
one error; the non-existence of an assessment” with respect to
petitioner’s taxable year 1996.3 In support of his contention
that respondent did not make an assessment with respect to that
year, petitioner points out that “The appeals officer acknowl-
edged that there is no 23C document in Petitioner’s case” and
that, in making the assessment with respect to petitioner’s
taxable year 1996, respondent did not use Form 23C, Assessment
Certificate--Summary Record of Assessments (Form 23C),4 but
instead used a computer and a computer-generated report known as
Revenue Accounting Control System (RACS) Report 006 (RACS 006).5
3We disagree that petitioner’s motion addresses only “the
non-existence of an assessment”. As discussed supra note 1,
petitioner’s motion addresses two of the three allegations of
error in the petition.
4According to petitioner, respondent’s Internal Revenue
Manual (IRM) requires that, in making an assessment of tax,
respondent use Form 23C signed by an authorized official. To
support that contention, petitioner relies on what he identifies
as IRM sec. 3.17.46.2.4(1) (Jan. 1, 1999), which he quotes in
petitioner’s motion as follows:
All assessments must be certified by signature of an
authorized official on the Summary Record of Assessment
(Form 23C, Assessment Certificate-Summary Record of
Assessments). A signed Summary Record of Assessment
authorizes issuance of notices and other collection
actions (refer to IRC Regulations 301 6203-1 [sic]).
5Petitioner also contends that the Disclosure Office admit-
ted that respondent made no assessment with respect to peti-
tioner’s taxable year 1996 when that office stated the following
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011