                        T.C. Memo. 2002-75



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                THOMAS LOU HARRIS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9515-00L.               Filed March 27, 2002.


     Thomas Lou Harris, pro se.

     Kenneth P. Dale, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:   The issue in this case is whether respondent

has met the requirements of section 6330.1




     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended.
                               - 2 -

                            Background

     Thomas Lou Harris resided in Mount Vernon, Washington, when

he filed his petition.   The assessments relate to his 1987, 1988,

1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Federal income tax liabilities

(i.e., years in which petitioner did not file returns).   On

September 11, 1998, respondent issued petitioner notices of

deficiency relating to the years in issue.   Petitioner received,

but did not seek redetermination of, the notices of deficiency.

     On October 13, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of

Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.   On October

27, 1999, petitioner filed a request for a Collection Due Process

Hearing (i.e., Form 12153) stating that “No summary assessment

has been provided as requested.”

     In a letter dated June 29, 2000, respondent’s Appeals

officer scheduled petitioner’s hearing for July 14, 2000, at 8:30

a.m. and provided petitioner with the option of a face-to-face or

a telephone hearing.   The letter also stated that petitioner had

been provided with a copy of computer transcripts that identified

the record of assessment and included data “identifying the tax

periods, the taxpayer, taxable activities, list of tax owed as

[it] appears on [the] record of assessment, and certifying

officer.”   Petitioner did not appear at the hearing or call the

Appeals officer.
                                - 3 -

     On August 8, 2000, the Appeals office sent petitioner a

Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under

Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination) sustaining the proposed

collection action.   Respondent relied on the transcripts to

verify the assessments.   Prior to trial, respondent provided

petitioner with copies of Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments,

Payments, and Other Specified Matters (Forms 4340).

                              Discussion

     Section 6330(b)(1) provides that if a taxpayer requests a

hearing, “such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue

Service Office of Appeals.”    Section 6330(c)(1) states:   “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.”    Petitioner received the

notices of deficiency.    Accordingly, the underlying liability is

not at issue.   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

     Petitioner contends that the computer transcripts were not

adequate proof of assessment.    Respondent contends that the

Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion by relying on the

transcripts to verify the assessments.     We agree with respondent.

The transcripts contained the requisite information (i.e.,

“identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability

assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of
                                 - 4 -

the assessment”, sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.).

Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51.

     Petitioner further contends that he was not provided with

the record of assessment.   Where the Commissioner provides the

taxpayer with Forms 4340 (i.e., proof of assessment) before

trial, and the taxpayer does not “show at trial any irregularity

in the assessment procedure that would raise a question about the

validity of the assessments”, the taxpayer is not prejudiced.

Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 163, 167 (2002).          Prior to

trial, petitioner received copies of the Forms 4340 relating to

the years in issue.   At trial, petitioner did not show any

irregularity in the assessment procedure.       Accordingly, we

sustain the respondent’s determination.

     Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
