Andy Hromiko - Page 8

                                        - 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