                        T.C. Memo. 2002-51



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                VERNICE B. KUGLIN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2657-00L.             Filed February 25, 2002.


     Joyce Griggs, for petitioner.

     Ross M. Greenberg, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:   The issue for decision 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

     On June 16 and July 16, 1997, respondent issued notices of

deficiency relating to Vernice Kuglin’s 1994 and 1995 Federal

income taxes, respectively, but petitioner did not seek

redetermination of the deficiencies.

     On December 4, 1997, petitioner’s counsel requested a copy

of the assessments relating to petitioner’s 1994 and 1995 income

taxes.   On June 28, 1999, respondent issued a Notice of Intent to

Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.    On July 15, 1999,

petitioner filed a Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing

(i.e., Form 12153) and contended that there was no “valid summary

record of assessment”.    On September 16, 1999, respondent’s

Appeals officer printed out computer transcripts (transcripts) of

respondent’s records.    The transcripts contained petitioner’s

Social Security number and the first four letters of her last

name; monetary figures representing amounts assessed, identified

by respondent’s transaction codes; and petitioner’s adjusted

gross and taxable income.    In a letter dated December 13, 1999,

the Appeals officer responded to petitioner’s request for a

hearing and scheduled a telephone hearing, which was held on

January 25, 2000.

     On February 16, 2000, respondent issued a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 (determination), sustaining the proposed collection
                                - 3 -

action.    In making the determination, respondent relied on the

transcripts to verify the assessments.     Respondent, before making

his determination, did not give petitioner copies of these

transcripts or Forms 4340, Certificates of Assessments, Payments,

and Other Specified Matters (Forms 4340).

     On March 7, 2000, petitioner, who was residing in Memphis,

Tennessee, filed her petition for review of the determination

with the Court.    Respondent provided petitioner with copies of

Forms 4340 on December 4, 2000.    At trial, on January 8, 2001,

respondent moved for the imposition of a section 6673(a)(1)

penalty.

                              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) provides:   “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(d)

provides for Tax Court review of the Commissioner’s determination

relating to the section 6330 hearing.

     Petitioner contends that the Appeals officer abused his

discretion by relying on the transcripts to verify the

assessment, and that section 6330(c)(1) requires the production

of Form 23C.    Respondent contends that an Appeals officer, in
                                  - 4 -

verifying the assessments, may rely on computer transcripts that

contain the requisite information.

      We agree with respondent.    Section 6203 authorizes the

Secretary to make assessments.     The assessment officer, appointed

by the Secretary, makes the assessment by signing the summary

record of assessment.   Sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

The summary record of assessment must “provide identification of

the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the

taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment.”

Id.   Section 6330(c)(1), however, does not require that the

Commissioner verify the information by using a particular source

(i.e., the summary record itself rather than a computer

transcript).   The transcripts respondent used for the

verification contained the requisite information.     Respondent’s

reliance on such transcripts was not an abuse of discretion.

      Where the Commissioner provides the taxpayer with Forms 4340

(i.e., proof of assessment) after the hearing and 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. ___, ___ (2002) (slip op. at 9).

At trial, petitioner did not show any irregularity in the

assessment procedure.   Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s

determination.
                                 - 5 -

     Respondent contends that petitioner’s position is frivolous

and instituted primarily for delay and that, pursuant to section

6673(a)(1), the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner.      We

decline, however, to impose such a penalty in this case.

     Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                           An appropriate order and

                                      decision will be entered.
