- 11 -
notice and demand for payment for purposes of section 6303(a).11
Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992);
Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-88. The Appeals officer
did not abuse his discretion in relying on the Forms 4340 to
verify compliance with section 6303(a). The Appeals officer was
not required to produce copies of the notices of balance due at
the hearing.
The Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in refusing
to produce his enforcement pocket commission at the Appeals
hearing. Further, he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to
produce the enforcement pocket commission of the IRS
representative who signed the notice of lien filing. We
similarly reject petitioner’s contentions that the IRS
representative who signed the notices sent to petitioner did not
have a delegation of authority from the Secretary.12
11Petitioner argued at the Appeals hearing that a notice and
demand for payment must comply with a 1914 Treasury decision,
which requires a Form 17 be used. We have previously rejected
that argument. Keene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277;
Davich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-255; Tapio v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-141.
12The Secretary or his delegate, including the Commissioner,
is authorized by statute to issue a notice of Federal tax lien, a
notice of Federal tax lien filing and right to a hearing under
sec. 6320, and a notice of intent to levy and right to a hearing
under sec. 6330. Secs. 6320(a), 6323(a), 6330(a), 6331(d),
7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A)(i); see also Wilson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-242; secs. 301.6320-1(a)(1), 301.6330-1(a)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011