- 9 -
162, 166-167 (2002). As previously discussed, the certified
copies of the Forms 4340 for petitioners’ 1996 and 1997 taxable
years establish that petitioners’ liabilities for those years
were properly assessed after petitioners failed to respond to the
notice of deficiency.
D. Validity of the Notice and Demand for Payment
Petitioners’ next contention is that they did not receive a
“procedurally proper” Notice and Demand for Payment with respect
to 1996 and 1997, as required by sections 6321 and 6303.
The certified Forms 4340 indicate that a Statutory Notice of
Balance Due was sent to petitioners on October 25, 1999. When
questioned at the motion hearing, petitioner husband conceded
that he “got something” on that date from the IRS but refused to
concede that it was a Statutory Notice of Balance Due. We
accordingly find that petitioners have failed to show error or
irregularity in the Forms 4340 with respect to the issuance of a
Statutory Notice of Balance Due. A Notice of Balance Due
satisfies the requirement of notice and demand for payment under
section 6303. See Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262-263
(2002); Keene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277; Hall v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-267. Therefore, petitioners’
contention lacks merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011