- 8 -
See Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 121 (2001); Berkey v.
IRS, 88 AFTR 2d 01-6530, 2001-2 USTC par. 50,708 (E.D. Mich.
2001).
Petitioners also complain that they did not receive notice
and demand. This contention is similar to others by petitioners;
they question not whether they actually received the various
notifications from respondent, but whether respondent used the
particular form that petitioners argue must be used for the
notice and demand to be valid. In that regard, section
6330(c)(1) does not require the Commissioner to rely on a
particular document to satisfy the verification requirement.
Wagner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-180; see also Roberts v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 371 (2002). In addition, it has been
held that “‘the form on which a notice and assessment and demand
for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the
taxpayer with all the information required under * * * [section
6303].’” Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir.
1991) (quoting Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 525 (9th Cir.
1990)); Planned Invs., Inc. v. United States, 881 F.2d 340, 344
(6th Cir. 1989).
In addition, respondent is not required to prove receipt by
petitioners of notice and demand, but need only show that the
notice and demand was sent to petitioners’ last known address.
United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1019 (11th Cir. 1989);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011