- 8 -
2002, and that statutory notices of balance due were mailed to
petitioner on that date. Absent some showing of irregularity in
the Forms 4340, which petitioner has not alleged, those records
serve as presumptive evidence that the tax was validly assessed,
see Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 40-41, and that notice and
demand pursuant to section 6303(a) was mailed to petitioner, see
Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993); United
States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1019 (11th Cir. 1989); Craig v.
Commissioner, supra at 262-263. Since the evidence in the record
demonstrates fulfilment of the requirements of applicable law and
administrative procedure that petitioner contends were not
satisfied, petitioner’s allegations concerning the verification
requirement of section 6330(c)(1) are no bar to summary judgment.
B. Collection Where Appeal Pending
The remaining issue raised by petitioner concerns the
appropriateness of collection action where the underlying tax
liability is the subject of a pending appeal. Petitioner argues
that respondent should not pursue collection while the appeal of
MatrixInfoSys Trust v. Commissioner, supra, is pending.3
3 As noted earlier, on Feb. 14, 2003, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit in Hromiko v. Commissioner, 56 Fed. Appx.
359 (9th Cir. 2003), affirmed our opinion in MatrixInfoSys Trust
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-133, which sustained the
underlying tax liabilities that are the subject of the instant
collection action. As petitioner’s right to further review in
the deficiency proceeding may not be exhausted, we address his
contentions on the merits.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011