- 9 -
notice of deficiency for 1997 is invalid because the
Commissioner’s representative who signed the notice did not have
a delegation of authority from the Secretary.9 Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002); Davich v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-255. We address petitioner’s remaining contentions to
determine whether the Appeals officer abused his discretion.
Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001).
Section 6330(c)(1) requires the Appeals officer to verify
that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative
procedure have been met. However, section 6330(c)(1) does not
require the Appeals officer to rely on a particular document to
satisfy his verification function. Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-51. Further, that Code section does not require the
Appeals officer to provide a copy of the verification that the
requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure
have been met. Nestor v. Commissioner, supra at 166. In the
instant case, the Appeals officer relied upon Forms 4340 to
verify that the assessments were made, that notice and demand for
payment was sent to petitioner, and that the tax liabilities
remained unpaid. At the hearing, the Appeals officer provided
petitioner with copies of the Forms 4340.
9The Secretary or his delegate is authorized by statute to
issue a notice of deficiency. Secs. 6212(a), 7701(a)(11)(B) and
(12)(A)(i). The notice of deficiency herein was signed by
Deborah Reilly, Director, Philadelphia Customer Service Center.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011