- 12 -
115 T.C. 35 (2000).10 On the record before us, we reject the
first and second allegations of error in the petition.
We turn now to the third allegation of error in the petition
regarding petitioner’s alleged “inability to examine documents
and to cross examine witnesses against him.” Although the
10In Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000), we held
that, absent a showing by the taxpayer of an irregularity in
respondent’s assessment procedure, it was not an abuse of discre-
tion for the Appeals officer to have relied on Form 4340 for
purposes of complying with sec. 6330(c)(1). Id. at 41. That is
because Form 4340 provides presumptive evidence that the Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) has validly assessed a
tax. E.g., United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1018 (11th
Cir. 1989); Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 40.
After we decided Davis, we held that it was not an abuse of
discretion for the Appeals officer to have relied on certain
computer-generated transcripts for purposes of complying with
sec. 6330(c)(1). E.g., Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
81; Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51; Mann v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. Sec. 6330(c)(1) does not require the
Commissioner to rely on a particular document to satisfy the
verification requirement imposed by that section. E.g., Lindsey
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87; Kuglin v. Commissioner,
supra.
We note that petitioner represented the taxpayer in Davis v.
Commissioner, supra, and that in Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117
T.C. 183 (2001), we observed:
We note that the petition in this case [Lunsford v.
Commissioner, supra] is essentially the same as the
petition filed with this Court in Davis v. Commis-
sioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000). This is not surprising
since the petition was filed by Thomas W. Roberts, who
also filed the petition for the taxpayer in the Davis
case. Mr. Roberts was disbarred from practice before
this Court on June 18, 2001, and was removed as peti-
tioners’ counsel on July 18, 2001.
Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 187 n.8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011