Paul L. Bowman - Page 12
- 12 -
We reject petitioner’s assertion that under Robinette v.
Commissioner, supra, respondent’s motion should be denied because
the notice of determination did not refer to the 2001 notice of
deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency.6 See, e.g., Dues
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-109; Poe v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-107; Stoewer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-71. In
each of those cases, the Commissioner issued a notice of defi-
ciency to the taxpayer. The notice of determination involved in
each such case did not refer explicitly to any such notice.
Nonetheless, the Court granted the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment in each such case. We hold that neither
Robinette v. Commissioner, supra, nor any other authority pre-
cludes the Court’s consideration of the 2001 notice of deficiency
and the 2002 notice of deficiency in determining whether to grant
6Petitioner also raises a hearsay objection to the 2001
notice of deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency. “‘Hear-
say’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
Respondent did not attach as exhibits to respondent’s motion the
2001 notice of deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency for
the truth of the matters asserted therein. We reject peti-
tioner’s hearsay objection to the 2001 notice of deficiency and
the 2002 notice of deficiency.
7We note that sec. 6330(c)(1) does not mandate that the
Appeals Office provide a taxpayer with a copy of the verification
upon which that office relied in satisfying the verification
requirements of that section. Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
252, 261-262 (2002).
Page: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: November 10, 2007