                        T.C. Memo. 2002-53



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



         JEFFREY S. AND SUSAN L. DUFFIELD, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 3716-00L.                 Filed February 25, 2002.


     Joyce Griggs, for petitioners.

     Ross M. Greenberg and Joanne B. Minsky, for respondent.


                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:   The issues in this case are whether

respondent has met the requirements of section 63301 and whether

petitioners are liable for the section 6673(a)(1) penalty.

                             Background

     Jeffrey and Susan Duffield resided in Bear, Delaware, when

they filed their petition.   The assessments relate to liabilities



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

that petitioners reported on 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995,

and 1996 Federal income tax returns.

     On June 11, 1999, respondent issued a Notice of Intent to

Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.    On July 8, 1999,

petitioners’ representative filed a Request for a Collection Due

Process Hearing (i.e., Form 12153) and requested a copy of the

assessments.   In a letter dated January 19, 2000, respondent’s

Appeals officer asked petitioners to ratify the hearing request.

In a letter dated February 7, 2000, petitioners’ representative

provided the ratification and questioned “the existence of a

valid assessment document”.   In an undated letter, the Appeals

officer replied:   “Our office believes the information provided

is sufficient to determine that the necessary statutory and

administrative requirements have been met.”    The Appeals officer

wrote further:   “If, however, you wish to present relevant issues

relating to the unpaid tax in accordance with my earlier

correspondence, I have scheduled time on March 8, 2000, at 1:30

p.m. at the office address above.”     Neither petitioners nor their

representative appeared at that time or requested that the

hearing be rescheduled.

     On March 8, 2000, the Appeals officer obtained computer

transcripts (transcripts) of petitioners’ accounts.    The

transcripts contained petitioners’ Social Security number and the

first four letters of their last name; monetary figures
                                - 3 -

representing amounts assessed, identified by respondent’s

transaction codes; and petitioners’ adjusted gross and taxable

income.

     On March 16, 2000, respondent issued a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

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

action.   In making the determination, respondent relied on the

transcripts to verify the assessments.     Respondent, prior to

making his determination, did not give petitioners copies of

these transcripts or Forms 4340, Certificates of Assessments,

Payments, and Other Specified Matters (Forms 4340).     On December

22, 2000, respondent’s counsel provided petitioners with a copy

of the transcripts.   At trial, on January 8, 2001, respondent

provided petitioner, and introduced into the record, Forms 4340.

Respondent also requested that the Court impose 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) 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.”     Section 6330(c)(2)(B)

allows challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying
                                - 4 -

liability only if petitioners did not receive a notice of

deficiency or have an opportunity to dispute the liability.

Section 6330(d) provides for Tax Court review of the

Commissioner’s determination.

       Petitioners do not contest the underlying liabilities but

contend that section 6330(c)(1) requires the production of Form

23C.    Respondent contends that the Appeals officer did not abuse

her 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 the assessment”, sec

301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs).     Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2002-51.

       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, petitioners did not show any irregularity in the

assessment procedure.    Accordingly, we sustain the respondent’s

determination.
                                 - 5 -

     Respondent contends that petitioners’ position is frivolous

and instituted primarily for delay and that, pursuant to section

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