Kevin Thompson - Page 10

                                       - 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-            
               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