- 13 -
particular document to satisfy the verification requirement
imposed therein. E.g., Schnitzler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-159 (citing five other cases to support this principle). We
have repeatedly held that the Commissioner may rely on Forms 4340
or transcripts of account to satisfy the verification requirement
of section 6330(c)(1). Hromiko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
107; Schnitzler v. Commissioner, supra; Kaeckell v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-114; Obersteller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-106; Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-88; Lindsey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87, affd. 456 Fed. Appx. 802 (9th
Cir. 2003); Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86, affd. 70
Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003); Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-53; Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51.
Petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the
assessment procedure that would raise a question about the
validity of the assessments or the information contained in the
Forms 4340 or transcripts of account. See Davis v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 35, 41 (2000); Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48.
Accordingly, we hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the
verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1). Cf. Nicklaus v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011