- 10 -
provide the verification to the taxpayer. Nestor v.
Commissioner, supra at 166; sec. 301.6330-1(e)(1), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. As stated above, the Appeals officer did review
Form 4340 for petitioner’s 1997 account. This was sufficient to
fulfill the requirement of section 6330(c)(1). See Nestor v.
Commissioner, supra at 166.
Petitioner next contends that he did not receive a valid
notice and demand for payment for 1997 as required by section
6303(a). However, the Form 4340 reviewed by the Appeals officer
showed that notices of balance due were sent to petitioner on
October 9 and November 13, 2000. Petitioner’s response to the
November 13, 2000, notice of balance due is proof that he
received it. A notice of balance due constitutes the notice and
demand for payment required by section 6303(a). Standifird v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-245, affd. 72 Fed. Appx. 729 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Tornichio v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
291.
Section 6673(a) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty of
up to $25,000 if a taxpayer institutes or maintains proceedings
that are primarily for delay, or if the taxpayer’s position is
frivolous or groundless. While we shall not impose a penalty
under section 6673(a) today, we admonish petitioner that we will
consider imposing such a penalty in the future if he continues to
make frivolous and groundless arguments in this Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011