- 8 -
Hence, despite repeated warnings and opportunities, the only
contentions other than the recorded hearing issue advanced by
petitioner, i.e., the notice of deficiency and assessment issues
discussed below, are of a nature previously rejected by this and
other courts. The record therefore does not indicate that any
purpose would be served by remand or additional proceedings. The
Court concludes that all pertinent issues relating to the
propriety of the collection determination can be decided through
review of the materials before it.
Petitioner claims that there was a failure to issue a notice
of deficiency or a determination of a deficiency. However, while
a deficiency notice is not in the record, petitioner does not
seek to challenge respondent’s determination of his income tax
liability for the 3 years in issue and agrees that the standard
for review in this case is abuse of discretion. We deem this to
be a concession by petitioner that there was a deficiency notice
and a determination of a deficiency, notwithstanding petitioner’s
assertion to the contrary. Petitioner alleges irregularity in
respondent’s assessment procedure, but caselaw establishes that a
Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other
Specified Matters, included in the record for each year at issue,
satisfies the verification requirements under section 6330(c)(1)
and constitutes presumptive evidence that a tax has been validly
assessed. See Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 371 n.10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011