- 8 -
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984).
Petitioner also argues that Ms. Smith abused her discretion
by “cherry-picking” documentation to verify that the assessment
procedures were followed and to determine that the requirements
of applicable law and administrative procedures were satisfied.
Petitioner’s argument is without merit.
Section 6330(c)(1) provides that “The appeals officer shall
at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure
have been met.” Section 6330(c)(1) does not require the Appeals
officer to rely on a particular document to satisfy the
verification requirement. Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365,
371 n.10 (2002), affd. 329 F.2d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003); Kubon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-71. Generally, the Appeals officer
may rely on TXMODA transcripts of account to satisfy the
verification requirement. See Kubon v. Commissioner, supra;
Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-190; Weishan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-88, affd. 66 Fed. Appx. 113 (9th
Cir. 2003); Lindsey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87, affd. 56
Fed. Appx. 802 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ms. Smith obtained and reviewed TXMODA transcripts of
account for petitioner’s tax years at issue to verify that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007