Stan D. Kaye - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          questions whether respondent used the particular form that                  
          petitioner argues 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 “‘[t]he form on which           
          a notice of 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. 1992) (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            
          petitioner of notice and demand, but need only show that the                
          notices and demand were sent to petitioner’s last known address.            
          United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1019 (11th Cir. 1989);               
          Pursifull v. United States, 849 F. Supp. 597, 601 (S.D. Ohio                
          1993), affd. 19 F.3d 19 (6th Cir. 1994).                                    
               Finally, Form 4340 may be relied upon to show that notice              
          and demand was mailed to a taxpayer.  Hansen v. United States, 7            
          F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Chila, supra.               
          Respondent’s failure to produce a copy of the notice and demand             
          document is not conclusive, “because the notices are computer               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011