§6303 — Notice and demand for tax

If the person fails to protest or, after a timely protest, the Secretary makes a final 'The record does not reflect whether the Appeals team manager who overruled SO Hernandez was former SO Villaverde or another person.

We disagree with petitioner.

The Commissioner initiates this collection process by issuing a notice and demand for payment pursuant to section 6303.

Provisions ofTitle 26 The Code requires that upon making an assessment the Secretary issue notice and demand for payment pursuant to section 6303 before starting administrative collection efforts.

Lien principles When a taxpayer fails to pay a tax liability after the IRS gives notice and demand pursuant to section 6303, section 6321 imposes a lien in favor ofthe United States on all the property ofthe delinquent taxpayer.

(cid:16)042 IRC section 6303 requires notice and demand be given within 60 days, after making assessment ofa tax.

6321; (3) giving the taxpayernotice and demand for payment ofthe liability pursuant to section 6303; and (4) giving the taxpayernotice ofan NFTL filing and right to a hearing pursuant to section 6320(a)(1) and (3)(B), see Med.

The Commissioner initiates this collection process by issuing a notice and demand for payment pursuant to section 6303.

Pursuant to section 6303, respondent sent to the Foundation on June 13, 2011, a combined notice ofintent to levy and a notice and demand for payment (Form CP504B) ofthe delinquency penalty by June 23, 2011.

(cid:16)042 IRC section 6303 requires notice and demand be given within 60 days, after making assessment ofa tax.

Section 6303 requires only that the notice (1) state the amount ofunpaid tax, (2) demand payment, and (3) be issued within 60 days ofassessment.

The Internal Revenue Service issues a notice and demand for tax pursuant to section 6303.

o petitioner's case determined that all requirements, of applicable law and administrative procedure were met, including that respondent made the assessments pursuant to section 6201 and mailed a notice and demand for payment to petitioner at his last known address within 60 days of the assessments pursuant to section 6303 .

6303 requires the IRS to give notice and to demand payment within 60 days of assessment by leaving the notice and demand at the taxpayer's dwelling or usual place of business or mailing it to the taxpayer's last known address .

IRC Section 6303 provides that the IRS shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days after the making of an assessment , give notice to the taxpayer, stating the amount and demanding payment .

Section 6303 provides that the Secretary shall within 60 days after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203 give notice and demand for payment to the person liable for the tax .

Haber and Diversified claim that, because the February 11, 2014, letter was sent before assessment, it was untimely under section 6303 and thus could not have provided an “opportunity to dispute” their liabilities with Appeals.

Specifically, section 6303(a) ofchapter 64 provides: "Afterthe making ofan assessment ofa tax pursuant to section 6203, [the IRS shall] give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding [the] payment '6The Court ofAppeals noted that ch. 63 provides for two methods of assessment: (1) subch. B's special procedure for assessment ofincome, estate, and gift taxes, and (2) subch. A's general procedure for the assessment ofother taxes. However, subch. B is inapplica

Specifically, section 6303(a) ofchapter 64 provides: "Afterthe making ofan assessment ofa tax pursuant to section 6203, [the IRS shall] give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding [the] payment '6The Court ofAppeals noted that ch. 63 provides for two methods of assessment: (1) subch. B's special procedure for assessment ofincome, estate, and gift taxes, and (2) subch. A's general procedure for the assessment ofother taxes. However, subch. B is inapplica

at: (1) Respondent had properly assessed petitioner’s tax liabilities for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 on June 6, 1988 (i.e., the return - 7 - assessments); (2) respondent had given petitioner notice of the return assessments as required by section 6303; (3) that notices of deficiency were not required with respect to the return assessments for 1984 through 1987 because the assessments covered amounts reported as due on petitioner’s returns; and (4) that the Form 900 executed by petition

§6303 or that the Commissioner had transmitted the Certified Assessment list, identifying the petitioner, to the Director or that the assessment officer had in fact executed the summary record of assessment on the dates the assessments were alleged to have been made. -8- We disagree with petitioner’s allegation that the Appeals officer failed to o

sment made by respondent is valid. See Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51; see also Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-53. -9- taxes.” He argues that there is no proof of mailing by respondent of the Notices of Assessment required by section 6303. The record shows otherwise. “The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount a

he legal requirement of prior notice and demand under section 6303(a), Conway v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. at 219, the record before the Court shows that notice and demand was sent to petitioners by the IRS on or about March 5, 2018, in compliance with section 6303. Because there is no credible evidence before the Court that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were not satisfied, we conclude that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in making her determina

e assessment was timely and within the three-year period of limitations provided by section 6501. - 10 - [*10] III. Notice and Demand for Payment Petitioner's next argument is that notice and demand for payment was not sent to him as required under section 6303. Section 6303(a) provides that a taxpayer shall be given notice and demand for payment within 60 days after an assessment is made. We determined supra p. 9 that assessment was made on July 16, 2012. Therefore we must determine whether not

[section 6303].'" Conway v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 209, 216 (2011) (quoting Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992)). "A notice ofbalance due constitutes a notice and demand for payment under section 6303(a)." Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262-263 (2002).3 Notice and demand ofthe assessed tax must be left at the person's dw

8 - Sec . 6330(c)(3) . In complying with section 6330, an Appeals officer may rely on a computer transcript or Form 4340 to verify that a valid assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303 . Nestor v . Commissioner, 118 T .C . 162, 166 (2002) . Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is sufficient to establish that the procedural requirements of section 6330 have been met . Id . at 166-167

Section 6303." In addition, pétitioner filed a posttrial brief which stated he did "not and has not engaged in an activity that produces 'TAXABLE INCOME', but only an exchange of intellectual and physical property for an agreed upon perceived value in the only medium of exchange of the day i.e. FRN's [Federal Reserve Notes]". Petitioner's brief als

2004-208. Petitioner also contended throughout the hearing process and contends now that there was never a valid assessment of the 2000 liability pursuant to section 6203 and that he never received notice and demand for payment of it, as required by section 6303. However, the certified Form 4340 for petitioner"s 2000 taxable year establishes otherwise on both counts. In the absence of any showing of irregularity, Forms 4340 are presumptive evidence that a tax has been validly assessed under sect

ion that the liabilities at issue were not discharged was not an abuse of discretion. Notice and Demand In the petition, petitioner claimed that he had not received notice and demand for payment for any of the liabilities at issue, as is required by section 6303. The 2003 supplemental - 24 - determination concluded that the computerized transcripts of petitioner's account showed that notice and demand for each liability had been sent on the date it was assessed. Although this issue is not specif

ing: (1) Petitioner never received a “valid” notice of deficiency; (2) no valid assessment of an income tax liability for 1997 had been made against petitioner; and (3) petitioner had not been issued a notice and demand for payment as required under section 6303. Petitioner also requested verification from the Secretary that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed with respect to the 1997 tax liability. On December 20, 2001, petitioner attended an administrative hearing i

on 6330(c)(1), to verify that all applicable laws and administrative procedures had been met; in particular, petitioner alleged that the liabilities had not been properly assessed and that he had not received notice of the assessments as required by section 6303. Subsequent to the filing of respondent’s motion for summary judgment and petitioner’s response, the Court of Appeals on February 14, 2003, affirmed our opinion in MatrixInfoSys Trust v. Commissioner, supra, sustaining the underlying tax

§6330(c)(1), nor was petitioner shown any such evidence”; (3) respondent did not issue a notice of assessment and demand for payment as required by section 6303; and (4) respondent has already received payment for petitioner’s 1990 tax liabilities.

Whether the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners is invalid because respondent either (a) did not make notice and demand for tax under section 6303, or (b) did not sign it in pen and ink.

He did not respond to that notice. On November 20, 2018, the IRS accord- ingly filed an NFTL on Form 668, Notice of Federal Tax Lien. The NFTL correctly stated petitioner’s name and address (in Bryn Mawr, Pennsyl- vania), the tax period in issue (the 2016 calendar year), the date of as- sessment (November 20, 2017), and the unpaid balance d

he recording of a taxpayer’s liability in the Commissioner’s books and records. See § 6203. Assessment is necessary before the Commissioner may begin collection of any unpaid tax by giving notice, and demanding payment, of the unpaid tax. See, e.g., § 6303. In general, the Commissioner is prohibited from assessing the deficiency in tax (or any remaining part of it) for a period after the mailing of a notice of deficiency and until after the conclusion of any resulting proceedings in court. See §

We have consistently held that the 60-day timeframe in section 6303 is not a hard deadline.

ent federal tax withholdings and estimated tax payments made. In accordance with section 6201, the IRS assessed the tax, additions to tax, and accrued interest for the years at issue. The IRS sent Ms. Lem notice and demand for payment as required by section 6303. Ms. Lem remitted a payment towards the liability for 2014, but it was insufficient to fully pay the total tax liability due for that year. With the application of overpayment credits applied for the years at issue from tax years 2016, 2

If a taxpayer fails to pay any federal tax liability after notice and demand under section 6303, section 6331(a) authorizes the IRS to collect the tax by levy on the taxpayer’s property.

anscripts and properly verified that all applicable requirements were met. In particular, the record before us refutes Mr. Chinweze’s argument that the settlement officer failed to verify the issuance of the notice and demand for payment required by section 6303. We likewise find that the settlement officer properly verified that the IRS mailed him the notice of deficiency at his last known address, as we have explained in detail supra pp. 6–8. B. Issues Raised During the proceedings before the

IMFOLI, (continued...) - 14 - [*14] IRC Section 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP Notice. The notice and demand for payment was properly mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC Section 6303. There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. The collection period allowed by statute to collect to collect [sic] these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes for t

until after a final administrative determination was made after a protest." The IRS observes that section 6213(a) prohibits an 2The text ofthe IRS's argument is: Because the notice ofthe making ofan assessment and demand for payment, as required by section 6303, is not given until the assessment has been made,¹ section[ ] 6672(b)(1) and (2) prohibit[s] the assessment ofthe TFRP for 60 days after giving the notice of proposed assessment.

tax years 2009, 2012, and 2015 but failed to pay the amount due for each year. Respondent assessed the amount reported as due for each year and mailed a notice and demand for payment to petitioners within 60 days ofeach assessment as required under section 6303. In January 2014 petitioners entered into an installment agreement to satisfy their outstanding income tax liabilities for tax years 2009 and 2012. Petitioners defaulted on the installment agreement in August 2016 after they stopped maki

Ifthe taxpayer fails to pay the tax within 10 days ofthe section 6303 notice and demand, the IRS may collect the tax by levying on the taxpayer's property.

. Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. - 5 - [*5] The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. * * * * * * * Collection followed all legal and procedural requirements and the actions taken or proposed were appropriate under the circumstanc

n the merits and cannot be addressed as we lackjurisdiction over this case. Specifically, petitioner alleges that: (1) respondent did not make a valid assessment under sec. 6203; (2) respondent did not timely notify petitioner ofan assessment under sec. 6303; and (3) the notice ofNFTL filing was untimely sent. - 10 - petitioner with a hearing. M Inv. Research Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 183, 191 (2006). Absent a determination letter petitioner lacks the "jurisdictional hook" to enter

is that the assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. (cid:16)042 The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to your last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. (cid:16)042 The Notice ofFederal Tax Lien (NFTL) was filed on June 20, 2014 and as required by IRC § 6320, you were mailed a copy ofthe NFTL and a letter advising you ofyour right to file a request for a CDP hearing. (cid:16)042 I have verifi

sider evidence ofthat taxpayer's income and deductions; we do not review actions taken by the Commissioner during the audit process for abuse ofdiscretion. See Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327-328 (1974) 5 Petitioner cited sec. 6303; we assume sec. 6330 was intended. - 10 - [*10] (describing the rationale for not looking behind a notice ofdeficiency as "the fact that a trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo; our determination as to a petitioner's tax liabil

was made on the applicable CDP notice period based on the Form 709 return taxpayer filed, per IRC § 6201, and the notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days ofthe assess- ment as required by IRC § 6303. (cid:16)042 There has been a neglect or refusal to pay the tax liabilities giving rise to a statutory gift tax lien under IRC § 6324(b). (cid:16)042 The appropriate computer codes have been posted with the correct date for the tax periods at

Notice and demand was sent to you as required by IRC § 6303 and you failed to pay the liability in full.

There is still a balance due.* IRC § 6331(a) provides that ifany person liable to pay such tax within 10 days after notice and demand for payment, the Secretary is authorized to collect such tax by levy on the person's property.

- 5 - [*5] Respondent's Efforts To Collect Petitioner's TFRP Liabilities On March 15, 2013, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice/Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice OfYour Right To A Hearing regarding his TFRP liabilities for the taxable periods in issue. See sec. 6330(a). In response, petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request

were issued. Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. - 13 - [*13] There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. Prior involvement: The assigned settlement officers have had no prior involvement with respect to the specific tax periods either

deficiency to the taxpayers at their last known address (or addresses) or each spouse signed an appropriate waiver, secs. 6212(b), 6213; (2) that the Commissionermade a valid assessment, sec. 6203; (3) that the Commissioner issued notice and demand, sec. 6303; (4) that the taxpayers did not pay the liability, sec. 6331(a); and (5) that the Commissioner issued to the taxpayers notice ofintent to collect the outstanding liability by levy and ofthe taxpayers' right to a hearing, sec. 6330(a); see R

retary on tax returns made in accordance with the Code. The Secretary normally has 10 years from the date ofassessment to collect tax that is due. Sec. 6502(a)(1). Ifa person liable for a tax fails to pay it after a dem.and for payment is made, see sec. 6303, a lien arises in favor ofthe United States upon all property and rights to property belonging to that person for the unpaid amount, including interest, see sec. 6321. The lien imposed by section 6321 arises when the tax is assessed pursuant

ficer obtains verification are: [1] the issuance ofa notice of deficiency, see sec. 6212(a); [2] the IRS's timely assessment ofthe liability, secs. 6201(a)(1), 6501(a); [3] the giving to the taxpayer of notice and demand for payment ofthe liability, sec. 6303; and [4] the giving to the taxpayer ofnotice of* * * [the proposed collection action] and ofthe taxpayer's rightto a hearing, secs. 6330(a), 6331(d). [Carothers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-165, at *12 n.8.] As is.discussed above, Mr. C

se accounts: (cid:16)042 These assessments were made pursuant to IRC § 6201. (cid:16)042 The notice and demand for payment letter for each as- sessment was mailed to your last known address within sixty (60) days ofassessment, in accordance with IRC § 6303. (cid:16)042 There were balances due when the CDP notices were issued, as required by IRC §§ 6322 and 6331(a). (cid:16)042 There is no indication you have a pending bankruptcy case. There is no indication you had a pending bank- ruptcy case wh

Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. - 12 - [*12] The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. There is no pending bankruptcy case, nor did you have a pending bankruptcy case at The Time the CDP was sent (11USC § 362(a)(6). Prior involveme

ss hearing were issued. Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to your last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. - 17 - [*17] Letter 3172 was sent by certified mail to the your last known address per records ofthe Automated Lien System, no later than 5 bus

creditors-- such as seizing a taxpayer's property without first going to court. See Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 260 (1935). Within 60 days after making an assessment, the Commissioner must send a "notice and demand" for payment oftax under section 6303. A taxpayer's failure -10- [*10] to respond to a notice and demand creates a tax lien in favor ofthe Commissioner, allowing the Commissioner to levy. Sec. 6321. Before seizing a taxpayer's property, however, the Commissioner has to offer

the Appeals officer obtains verification are: the issuance ofa notice ofdeficiency, see sec. 6212(a); the IRS's timely assessment ofthe liability, secs. 6201(a)(1), 6501(a); the giving to the taxpayer ofnotice and demand for payment ofthe liability, sec. 6303; and the giving to the taxpayer ofnotice ofintent to levy and ofthe taxpayer's right to a hearing, secs. 6330(a), 6331(d). - 13 - [*13] a notice ofdeficiency or otherwise have an opportunityto dispute the tax liability.' Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

he Secretary on returns made in accordance with the Code. The Secretary normally has 10 years from the date ofassessment to collect tax that is due. Sec. 6502(a)(1). Ifa person liable for a tax fails to pay it after a demand for payment is made, see sec. 6303, a lien arises in favor ofthe United States upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person for the unpaid amount, including 9As discussed in greater detail below, respondent now concedes that petitioner is entitled to an

As required by section 6303,2 within 60 days after the date on which respondent assessed petitioner's 2003 deficiency respondentmailed to petitioner a notice and demand for payment ofthat deficiency On July 13, 2010, respondent issued to petitioner a final notice ofintent to levy and notice ofyour right to a hearing with respect to petitioner's unpaid 2003 defici

assessment was properly made per IRC §6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. (cid:16)042 The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpay- ers' last known address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC §6303. - 10 - (cid:16)042 Per transcript analysis, there was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued per IRC 6330 and IRC 6331(a). There is still a balance due. (cid:16)042 Per transcript analysis, a CDP levy notice was sent by certified ma

ents ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met." Sec. 6330(c)(1). The Appeals Office determined that the requirements for filing a notice oflien hadieen met. It determined that a notice and demand for payment had been made, nee sec. 6303, that a notice offederal tax lien filing had been issued,4 that a notice ofa right to a collection-review hearing had been issued, 4The petitioners argue that they did not receive notice ofthe filing ofthe (continued...) -33- see sec. 6320(a

tax. See Burke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-282. The Commissioner cannot collect the failure-to-pay addition to tax until after notice and demand for payment. Sec. 6651(a)(3). Notice and demand for payment cannot be made until after assessment, sec. 6303, and an assessment ofa tax deficiency cannot be made until the decision ofthe Tax Court is final, sec. 6213(a). Consequently, a section 6651(a)(3) addition to tax cannot be a part ofa deficiency proceeding. As pertinent here, the increase i

ien notice filed against Mr. Kyereme, the basic requirements, see sec. 6320, for which the appeals officer was to obtain verification are: a timely assessment ofthe liability, secs. 6201(a)(1), 6501(a); notice and demand for payment ofthe liability, sec. 6303; and notice ofthe filing ofthe lien notice and ofthe taxpayer's right to a CDP hearing, sec. 6320(a) and (b). action be no more intrusive thannecessary." Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). Mr. Kyereme's contention maý implicate this balancing. See note 4

were issued. Assessment was properly.made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. The notice and d mand forpayment letter was mailed to the tax- payer's last kno n address, within 60 days ofthe assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. _ . There was a balaçce due when the CDP levy notice was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested. Lien Withdrawal We considered whether any ofthe criteria for allowing withdrawal.of the NFTL existed in yourcase IRC § 6323(j) allows the w

Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. (cid:16)042 The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. (cid:16)042 There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued. (cid:16)042 There is no offer-in-compromise or install- ment agreement pending or currently in ef- fect. There is also no pending innocent spouse request. (cid:16)042 Th

Whe e a taxpayer -appeals a decision of this Court and files a bond, assessmer,t is stayed until the deficiency is -finally deterinined. Sec .a 7485. Here a petitioner did nót file a bond when it appealed this Court' s First Decision. Consequently, respondent was nct stayed frot assessings ta: and issuing notice and demand for paymenn of

Notice and demand is provided for in section 6303 and "follows the making of an assessment".

ent wás made on the applicable 2008 Form 1040 CDP notice period baSed on the return you filed, per IRC § 6201, and the notices and demand for payment letters were mailed to your last known address, wit in 60 days of the assessment, as required by RC § 6303. This information was verified from the accounth transcripts. (cid:16)042 There was a alance due when the CDP notice was issued per IRC § 6330 and § 6331(a). There is presently an amount due and owing. (cid:16)042 IRC § 6330(a) imposes the,jre

the lien filed against Mr. Tucker, the basic requirements, see sec. 6320, for which the appeals officer was to obtain verification are: a timely assessment of the liability, secs. 6201(a) (1), 6501(a); notice and demand for payment of the liability, sec. 6303; and notice of the filing of the lien and of the taxpayer's right to a CDP hearing, sec. 6320(a) and (b). -21- Hearing Under IRC 6320" for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, erroneously stating that the Notice of Federal Tax Lien had been file

The notice and demand requirement in section 6321 refers to the action required by section 6303, which provides that the Commissioner, as soon as practicable'and within 60 days of assessment, must provide written notice, stating the amount of the liability and demanding payment thereof, to each person liable for the unpaid tax .

ficer may rely, on a computer transcript or Form 4340, Certificate of.Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, to verify that a valid.assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); Schaper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-203; Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-190. Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is sufficient to

Once an assessment has been made against a taxpayer, section 6303 directs-the Commissioner to give- the taxpayer notice of the assessment,' and demand payment, within, 60 days .

ficer may rely, on a computer transcript or Form 4340, Certificate of.Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, to verify that a valid.assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); Schaper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-203; Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-190. Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is sufficient to

Burke's] " last known address, within .60 .days of assessment,'-.as required by IRC section 6303" .,, (Emphasis added .) This was part of the verification that the Office of Appeals was required to obtain pursuant to section 6330(c)(1) .

On that s me date respondent sent petitioner a notice of balance due ; i .e , a notice and demand for ., payment within the meaning of section 6303 .

the document which resolves the tax liability of the taxpayer with regard to all tax, additions to tax and penalties at issue in the administrative proceeding (such as a Form 870 or closing agreement), or a notice of assessment for that liability (such as the notice and demand under section 6303), whichever is earlier mailed, or otherwise furnished, to the taxpayer ..

the tax due ; respondent made an additional tax assessment on petitioner's self-filed return for 2003 ; respondent's records show that the assessments were properly made ; notice and demand was sent to petitioner for each tax period as required, by section 6303 and petitioner f.ailed .to pay the liabilities in full ; there was a balance due at the time that the collection notices were sent as required by sections 6322 and 6331(a) ; Letter-3172 was sent to petitioner on October 27, 2006 ; Letter

er transcripts of your account : (cid:127) Assessments were made on the CDP notice periods per IRC § 6201 . (cid:127) The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the last known address within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303 . (cid:127) There was a balance due when the CDP notice was issued per IRC § 6322 and 6331(a) . (cid:127) There is no indication that you had a pending bankruptcy when the CDP notice was issued or that you currently have a pending bankruptcy .

g were issued . Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax period listed on the CDP notice . The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC §6303 . There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued and/or when the lien was filed. Prior involvement : This Settlement Officer has had no prior involvement with respect to the specific tax periods either in Appeals or Compliance . Co

, 2003, and December 14, 2004, respectively, and the amounts reported due for those years, $4,991 and $11,337, respectively, were assessed . A notice and demand for payment was mailed to petitioner within 60 days of each assessment as required under section 6303 . In response, petitioner submitted an offer-in-compromise (OIC) on June 6, 2005 . In his OIC petitioner offered $750 to settle in full his unpaid taxes for the years 1993 through 2003 . On August - 3 - 19, 2005, the Internal Revenue Ser

procedural requirements : o- The assessment was made on the applicable Due Process Notice periods per'IRC § 6201 . o The Notice and Demand for payment letter was mailed to your last known address within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC .§ 6303 . There was a balance due when the Collection Due Process notice was issued per IRC § 6322 and § 6331(a) . There remains an amount due and owing . o IRC §6320 does, in fact, provide for a Collection Due Process Hearing after a Notice of Federa

ed on transcripts of your accounts, the following was confirmed : (cid:127) Assessment was made on the above considered peri- ods per IRC Section 6201 and notice and demand for payment was mailed within 60 days of the assess- ment as required by IRC Section 6303 ; (cid:127) The filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not requested until at least 31 days after the issuance of an Urgent Notice (CP 504) ; (cid:127) There was a balance due when the NFTL was filed and Notice of Your Right to a H

ficer may rely on a computer transcript or Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments , Payments and Other Specified Matters, to verify that a valid assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303 . Nestor v . Commissioner , 118 T .C. 162, 166 ( 2002) ; Schaper v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2002-203 ; Schroeder v . Commissioner, T.C. Memo . 2002-190 . Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is

officer abused his discretion by sustaining the NFTL . The applicable laws and administrative procedures were satisfied . The parties agree that petitioners received the required notice and demand for payment within the 60-day timeframe mandated by section 6303 . And the record shows that petitioners received notice of the lien's filing and their right to request a hearing within the 5-day period prescribed by section 6320 . - 6 - The Appeals officer considered petitioners' challenge to the app

in the administrative case file and related computer records shows that the IRS followed law and procedure in this case. * * * The assessments in ques- tion were properly made under IRC section 6201, and notice and demand was sent to you as per IRC section 6303. You did not pay the liabilities. The IRS gave you additional opportunities to pay the balances due voluntarily, but you failed to do so. The Collection Department recorded the liens to protect the govern- ment’s interest. Relevant Issue

dered you to perfect the petition and pay the fee by 11/15/2002 . You did not do so and the Court dismissed your case . The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to your current address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303 . There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was requested . Ms . Dellosso verified the collection period allowed by statute to collect these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes for the tax periods at issue . There

In general , section 6303 ( a) provides that the Secretary shall give notice and demand for payment to the taxpayer within 60 days of making an assessment of tax .

sment was made on the applicablelCDP notice period per Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") ection 6201 . - 14 - The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC Section 6303 . There was a balance due when the CDP notice was issued per IRC Section 6322 and 6331(a) . IRC Section 6331 authorizes the IRS to levy if he taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay with 10 days after notice and demand . IRC Section 6331(d) r

Latos the notice and demand for payment required by section 6303 (a) with respect to Ms .

SCUSSION AND ANALYSI S Transcripts and the case history verify that : 1) the taxes at issue were assessed in accordance with IRC Section 6201, and that notice and demand for payment was mailed to your last known address timely in accordance with IRC Section 6303 . 2) there were balances due when the CDP notice was - 9 issued, as required by IRC Section 6322 and 6331(a), an that a levy source had been ;identified. 3) before any levy action was initiated, notice of i tent to levy was issued in acc

CUSSION AND ANALYSIS Transcripts and the case history verify that: 1) the taxes at issue were assessed in accor- dance with IRC Section 6201, and that notice and demand for payment was mailed to your last known address timely in accordance with IRC Section 6303. 2) there were balances due when the Collection Due Process notice was issued, as required by IRC Section 6322 and 6331(a), and that a levy source had been identified. 3) IRC 6320(a)(2) requires that taxpayers be notified of filing of a N

ements - Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice . The notice .and demand for payment letter was mailed to the tax- payer's last known address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303 . There was a balance due when the NFTL filing was requested . The collection period allowed by statute to collect these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes for the tax periods at issue . The taxpayer had no pending bank

) On February 7, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner the notice and demand for payment required by section 6303 (a) with respect to petitioner's unpaid liability for 2002 .

Return, for 2001 and 2002 on October 20 and December 1, 2003, respectively, and the amounts reported as due for those years were assessed . A notice and demand for payment was mailed to petitioners within 60 days of each assessment as required under section 6303 . On November 4, 2004, Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing (notice of levy), was mailed to petitioners with respect to the years at issue . The notice of .levy indicated that a Federal tax lien could b

The District Court rejected petitioner’s claim that assessment of his tax - 11 - liabilities was improper because the Government had not sent notice and demand for payment as required by section 6303, on the grounds that petitioner had raised the claim for the first time in his response to the Government’s motion for summary judgment and that his contention was without merit.

ed after July 19, 1999, as petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1992, 1993, and 1994.) On July 19, 1999, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1992, 1993, and 1994, as required by section 6303. On August 23, 1999, respondent issued a second notice of balance due with respect to those unpaid liabilities. On March 23, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (not

the amount of $853 .74 to .reflect a payment that petitioner made on August 12, 2004 . Respondent issued to petitioner respective notices of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1997,. 1998, 1999, and 2000, as required by section 6303 . On or about July 8, 2004, respondent prepared and filed a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 . On July.15, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of Federal

Climan drafted an Appeals Case Memorandum that verified that respondent's assessments were timely and that petitioner had received notice and demand for payment for each year in accordance with section 6303 .' On May 4, 2005, Mr .

ot dispute the underlying tax liability. Moreover, petitioners’ assertion that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code makes them liable for Federal income taxes is frivolous. - 10 - as long as it gives the taxpayer the information required under section 6303. Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992). Respondent is required to show that the notices and demand were sent to petitioners’ last known address, not that petitioners received them. United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 101

utorily liable or made liable for any tax pursuant to 26 USC.” -6- irregularities in the assessment procedure, (2) the Form 4340 relied upon by the Appeals Office is contradicted by respondent’s records and was not prepared in accordance with Internal Revenue Manual instructions, (3) respondent did not issue a notice and demand in compliance with section 6303, and (4) respondent improperly denied petitioners’ request to record the section 6330 hearing.

ursuing collection of the tax liabilities. • The assessments were made per IRC §§ 6201, 6203, 6211, 6212, and 6213. • The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the last known address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303. • IRC § 6321 provides a statutory lien when a tax- payer neglects or refuses to pay a tax liability after notice and demand. To be valid against third parties, except for other government enti- ties, a notice of lien must be filed in the prop

edures have been met. IRC § 6321 creates a lien on the taxpayer's property if the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay the tax after the tax is assessed and after notice and demand for - 6 - payment, at his last known address, as provided for in IRC § 6303. Review of transcripts have confirmed the tax was assessed 7/8/2002, and notice and demand was mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address, and there is still a balance due. IRC section 6320(a) provides that the IRS will notify a taxpayer

egations of irregularities in the assessment procedure, (2) the Form 4340 relied upon by the Appeals Office is contradicted by respondent’s records and was improperly certified, and (3) respondent did not issue a notice and demand in compliance with section 6303. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on April 9, 2004. Discussion The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988)

ot dispute the underlying tax liability. Moreover, petitioners’ assertion that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code makes them liable for Federal income taxes is frivolous. - 10 - as long as it gives the taxpayer the information required under section 6303. Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992). Respondent is required to show that the notices and demand were sent to petitioners’ last known address, not that petitioners received them. United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 101

ccordingly find that petitioners have failed to show error or irregularity in the Forms 4340 with respect to the issuance of a Statutory Notice of Balance Due. A Notice of Balance Due satisfies the requirement of notice and demand for payment under section 6303. See Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262-263 (2002); Keene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277; Hall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-267. Therefore, petitioners’ contention lacks merit. - 10 - E. Notice of Federal Tax Lien Petition

to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 - tioner’s taxable year 2000 as petitioner’s unpaid liability for 2000.) Respondent notified petitioner of the balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid liability for 2000, as required by section 6303. Around mid-October 2001, petitioner submitted to respondent an offer-in-compromise (petitioner’s offer) proposing to pay $1,000 to compromise petitioner’s unpaid liability for 2000. Around September 13, 2002, respondent’s representative

officer may rely on a computer transcript or Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters, to verify that a valid assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002). Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is sufficient to establish that the procedural requirements of section 6330 have been met. Id. at 166-167. In t

officer may rely on a computer transcript or Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters, to verify that a valid assessment was made and that a notice and demand for payment was sent to the taxpayer in accordance with section 6303. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002). Absent a showing of irregularity, a transcript that shows such information is sufficient to establish that the procedural requirements of section 6330 have been met. Id. at 166-167. In t

wed in addition to the tax return files for 1997 and 1998. * * * * * * * * * * The notice and demand letters were issued by regular mail on May 18, 1998 for 1997 and on May 31, 1999 for 1998 to the taxpayer’s last known address as required under IRC §6303. Letter 3172, meeting the notice condition imposed by IRC §6320, was dated June 26, 2001 and sent to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified mail. The taxpayers responded timely with a Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, Form 1

In addition, it has been held that “‘The form on which a notice of assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required under * * * [section 6303].’” Hughes v.

not do so. The taxes were assessed on 07/31/00 and 08/28/00 respectively. A notice and demand letter was issued by regular mail on 7/31/00 for the 1997 year and on 08/28/00 for the 1998 year to the taxpayer’s last known address as required under IRC §6303. Letter 1058, meeting the notice condition imposed by IRC §6331(d) and IRC 6330, was dated 07/24/01 and sent to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified mail for the 1998 year only. The Letter 3172, meeting the notice condition imposed by

In addition, it has been held that “‘[t]he form on which a notice of assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required under * * * [section 6303].’” Hughes v.

On May 16, 2002, petitioner filed a petition with the Court disputing the notice of deficiency for 2000.3 On October 10, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition, which stated: 1) Notice of deficiency is not the statutory notice called for by code section 6303, 6321, 6331.

In addition, it has been held that “‘the form on which a notice and assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required under * * * [section 6303].’” Hughes v.

In addition, it has been held that “‘[t]he form on which a notice and assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required under * * * [section 6303].’” Hughes v.

n of the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of this section is the document which resolves the tax liability of the taxpayer with regard to all tax, additions to tax and penalties at issue in the administrative proceeding (such as a Form 870 or closing agreement), or a notice of assessment for that liability (such as the notice and demand under section 6303), whichever is earlier mailed, or otherwise furnished, to the taxpayer.

6303 and 26 CFR sec. 301.6303-1). 8. To the best of my knowledge, I have never received certified notice and demand for payment of Federal taxes subsequent to lawful and procedurally proper assessment being made for calendar year ending December 31, 1996. (26 U.S.C. sec. 6303 and 26 CFR sec. 301.6303-1). 9. To the best of my knowledge, for cal

Petitioner also argued in the Form 12153 attachment that he did not receive a notice and demand for payment as required under section 6303.10 It is not apparent from that attachment whether petitioner was challenging the physical “receipt” of the notice or the validity of the notice received.

payer. See id. at 160-161. In United States v. Ball, 326 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1964), another opinion cited by petitioners, the parties thereto stipulated that there had been an assessment of income tax followed by a notice and demand for payment under section 6303. See id. at 899-900. They also stipulated that “Said assessment, with interest thereon, as allowed by law, remains due and owing to the United States of America.” Id. at 902 n.5. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Governm