- 13 -
Form 4340, in the assessment or in the notice and demand for
payment. It is undisputed that petitioner received a notice of
deficiency and a notice of intent to levy with respect to 2000,
which are also both sufficient for purposes of section 6303(a).
Craig v. Commissioner, supra at 263. We therefore find no abuse
of discretion in the notice of determination's verification that
all applicable procedural requirements, including the foregoing,
were followed.
Petitioner's contention that the settlement officer failed
to provide him certain documents or the verification that the
requirements of any applicable administrative procedure had been
met is also unavailing, as respondent need not do so. Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002).9
Petitioner's contention that the instant collection action
has not been authorized as required by section 7401 is meritless.
Section 7401 applies to a "civil action". The levy at issue
(made pursuant to section 6331) is an administrative action that
does not necessitate the institution of a civil suit. See
Carrillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-290; Williams v.
9 Petitioner also contends that the settlement officer
failed to verify that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure had been met, as required by sec.
6330(c)(1). Suffice to say that, as discussed above, all
specific challenges made by petitioner to the procedures followed
by respondent in maintaining this collection action are
meritless, and petitioner's general contrary allegation is
insufficient to bar summary judgment. See Hromiko v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-107.
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