Wesley Sherwood - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          procedure have been met.  However, section 6330(c)(1) does not              
          specify which documents the Commissioner must use to meet the               
          verification requirement.  See, e.g., Kuglin v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 2002-51.  It was not an abuse of discretion for                  
          respondent not to give petitioner the Forms 23C that he had                 
          requested.  See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535-536              
          (9th Cir. 1992); Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 371                 
          (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003); Nestor v.                     
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002).                                     
               2.   Whether Respondent Properly Assessed Petitioner’s Tax             
                    for 1998, 2001, and 2002                                          
               Petitioner contends that respondent did not properly assess            
          petitioner’s tax for 1998, 2001, and 2002 because he did not                
          receive copies of Form 23C.  We disagree.  Respondent makes an              
          assessment of Federal tax on a record of assessment.  Sec. 6203.            
          The Commissioner is not required to use Form 23C in making an               
          assessment.  Roberts v. Commissioner, supra at 369-371.  The                
          record of assessment must identify the taxpayer, the taxable                
          period, and the character and amount of the liability assessed.             
          Sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Skidmore reviewed                  
          transcripts that appeared to him to show that petitioner’s tax              
          for 1998, 2001, and 2002 had been validly assessed.  Petitioner             
          has not shown that there was any irregularity in the assessment             
          procedure.  We hold that the assessments are valid.                         







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011