- 13 -
administrative process show that respondent sent petitioner
notices of balance due on the same dates that respondent made
assessments against petitioner for the taxes and accuracy-related
penalties determined in the notices 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); Weishan v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d
137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993).
Petitioner also challenges the validity of the Final
Notice on the ground that it was not signed by the Secretary. As
previously mentioned, the Final Notice was signed by Scott
Kilpatrick, identified as the Chief of the Automated Collection
Branch Ogden, Utah.
Respondent contends that petitioner did not challenge the
validity of the Final Notice during the administrative process,
and the Court should not permit petitioner to argue the point
now. See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002). In the
alternative, respondent contends that the Chief of the Automated
Collection Branch was duly authorized to execute and issue the
Final Notice.
There is no indication in the record that petitioner
challenged the validity of the Final Notice during the
administrative process. However, even assuming arguendo that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011