- 16 -
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. 2002-132; Weishan v. Commissioner,
supra; see also Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th
Cir. 1993). Notably, petitioners acknowledged receipt of the
notice of balance due dated November 20, 2000, in their letter
dated December 20, 2000. See supra pp. 5-6.
Petitioners have 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 September 20, 2001.
B. Imposition of a Penalty Under Section 6673
We turn now to respondent’s oral motion for the imposition
of a penalty on petitioners under section 6673.
7 Petitioner David Andrew Schmith stated to the Appeals
officer at the administrative hearing on Aug. 21, 2001, that
“I’ll get my checkbook” and “I’ve offered to pay as long as you
show me the law that requires me to pay.” 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