                        T.C. Memo. 2010-113



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            JAMES E. AND CATHY MARLOW, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18721-08L.              Filed May 20, 2010.



     Mary Michelle Gillum and Robert B. Nadler, for petitioners.

     Martha J. Weber, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     DAWSON, Judge:   Respondent issued a Notice of Determination

Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330

(notice of determination) with respect to a final notice of

intent to levy to collect petitioners’ unpaid Federal income
                              - 2 -

taxes assessed for 2004 and 2005.1    In response, petitioners

timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d) seeking a

review of respondent’s determinations.

     The issues for decision are:

     (1) Whether respondent’s Appeals officer obtained

verification that requirements of any applicable law or

administrative procedure were met as required by section

6330(c)(1); specifically whether codes on computerized records

verify that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) properly assessed

petitioners’ Federal income taxes for 2004 and 2005 without

sending petitioners notices of deficiency; petitioners deny

signing and filing waivers of restrictions on assessment of the

taxes, and there are no waivers signed by petitioners agreeing to

the assessments in the IRS records;

     (2) if the Appeals officer did not obtain verification that

taxes were properly assessed, whether the case should be remanded

to the Appeals Office to obtain the purported waivers;

     (3) if the case is not remanded, whether respondent has met

his burden of proving that petitioners waived the restrictions on

assessments and the taxes were validly assessed; and




     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
                                - 3 -

     (4) if the taxes were properly assessed, whether

respondent’s settlement officer abused her discretion in denying

petitioners’ request for an offer-in-compromise (OIC).

                             Background

     Some of the facts and exhibits have been stipulated and are

so found.   The stipulation of facts and the supplemental

stipulation with attached exhibits are incorporated herein by

this reference.

     Petitioners James Marlow (Mr. Marlow) and Cathy Marlow (Mrs.

Marlow) resided in Tennessee when they filed their petition

appealing respondent’s notice of determination.

     Mr. Marlow has a third grade education, and Mrs. Marlow has

a seventh grade education.    For many years Mr. Marlow was in the

business of removing and hauling waste materials from rural

Appalachian coalfields.    He owned and operated the trucks used in

his business.    Mr. Marlow closed his business and retired in

September 2007 because of serious health problems.    Presently, at

age 67, his only income is his Social Security benefit of

approximately $1,500 a month.

     Petitioners timely filed their joint Federal income tax

returns for 2004 and 2005.    The returns were prepared by their

tax preparer J and J Accountants.    Petitioners provided the

return preparer with their receipts, canceled checks, and other

information.    On April 23, 2006, a fire destroyed petitioners’
                                - 4 -

residence along with all of their furniture, personal property,

and business records.

     The IRS selected petitioners’ 2005 income tax return for

examination.    On February 15, 2007, Revenue Agent Karen Jackson

(RA Jackson) sent petitioners a notice proposing to audit their

2005 return.    On March 5, 2007, RA Jackson met with Mr. Marlow at

the office of Vicki Mayes (Ms. Mayes), petitioners’ agent, for

the purpose of auditing petitioners’ 2005 return.   Mrs. Marlow

did not attend the meeting.   Although the audit notice was

limited to the 2005 return, RA Jackson expanded the audit to

include petitioners’ 2004 return.

     The IRS maintains an electronic version of RA Jackson’s

workpapers related to her examination of petitioners’ 2004 and

2005 returns.   The certified copy of the electronic version of RA

Jackson’s workpapers, provided to the Court on March 30, 2009,

includes a Form 4318, Examination Workpapers Index; a Form 9984,

Examining Officer’s Activity Record; notes; workpapers; lead

sheets; and copies of two Forms 4549, Income Tax Examination

Changes, showing RA Jackson’s changes to petitioners’ 2004 and

2005 returns.

     RA Jackson’s interview summary in her workpapers indicates,

inter alia, that petitioners had not used Form 2848, Power of

Attorney and Declaration of Representative, to grant Ms. Mayes a

power of attorney.   RA Jackson asked Ms. Mayes to complete a Form
                               - 5 -

2848.   Mr. Marlow took the completed Form 2848 to Mrs. Marlow for

her signature and was to fax the Form 2848 to RA Jackson’s

office.   Mr. Marlow provided oral information about his business

and business practices during 2005 and stated that he was not

aware of any errors on his 2005 return; he and RA Jackson

discussed specific items on the 2005 return.    RA Jackson made

changes to petitioners’ 2004 return by applying the percentages

of the adjustments to items for 2005 to the items for 2004.      She

gave Mr. Marlow the opportunity to collect information for that

year and to schedule another meeting.

     RA Jackson’s workpaper titled “Marlow 1040 Collectibility”

indicates that she considered collectibility for purposes of

determining the scope of the audit.    She discussed installment

agreement procedures and offer-in-compromise procedures with Mr.

Marlow but could not initiate an installment agreement because

the time it would take petitioners to pay the liabilities was

longer than she was authorized to approve.    After RA Jackson

returned to her office following the meeting with Mr. Marlow, she

received a telephone call from Mrs. Marlow to discuss possible

payment options.   RA Jackson told Mrs. Marlow that she would send

the appropriate forms and publications and offered to assist

petitioners in preparing the forms.    She suggested that

petitioners come to the IRS walk-in office to prepare the forms

and gave Mrs. Marlow her office address.
                                - 6 -

     RA Jackson customarily records her examination activities

and summaries on a Form 9984.    The Form 9984 in the certified

copy of RA Jackson’s workpapers shows the following information

about her meeting with Mr. Marlow on March 5, 2007:

     Met with the TP had the initial interview, reviewed
     records, and issued the report. TP will meet with his
     wife and return by 03/13/07. Went over appeal rights
     and Privacy Act. TP cannot pay-agreed to send him
     publications on payment. Received phone call from
     TP(W) we discussed payment options and told her I was
     sending publications.

The Form 9984 indicates that on March 6, 2007, RA Jackson sent

publications to petitioners.    There is no entry on RA Jackson’s

Form 9984 for March 13, 2007, the date Forms 4549 signed by

petitioners were to be returned to her.    The only entry on RA

Jackson’s Form 9984 after the March 6 entry is the last entry

dated March 14, 2007, which reads “Closed to GM” without any

reference to Forms 4549.

     If RA Jackson does not receive a signed Form 4549 after she

completes an audit, she either prepares a 30-day letter or

telephones the taxpayers and asks if they would like to have a

supervisory conference.    RA Jackson normally documents such

actions on the Form 9984, and there are no entries on RA

Jackson’s Form 9984 to indicate she took either action with

respect to petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 deficiencies.

     However, neither are there any entries on the Form 9984

indicating (1) that RA Jackson ever received Forms 4549 from
                               - 7 -

petitioners, signed or unsigned; (2) that Mr. Marlow and/or Mrs.

Marlow signed Forms 4549 agreeing that additional taxes were owed

for 2004 and 2005; or (3) that Mr. Marlow or Mrs. Marlow agreed

on Forms 4549, Forms 870, Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment

and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and Acceptance of

Overassessment, or in any other writing to waive the restrictions

on the assessments of the deficiencies.

     RA Jackson often does not record the receipt of a signed

Form 4549 on the Form 9984 because she believes that the signed

Form 4549 in the file documents its receipt.   Unfortunately,

there are no Forms 4549 signed by petitioners in petitioners’

file.   Moreover, the two Forms 4549 showing changes to

petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 returns that are included in the

certified copy of RA Jackson’s workpapers (the workpaper Forms

4549) were not prepared by RA Jackson at the time of the

examination of petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 returns and are not

actual copies of the Forms 4549 she prepared at the conclusion of

the examination.   This is evidenced by the following facts:

First, RA Jackson’s signature does not appear anywhere on the

workpaper Forms 4549, and her name is typed on the workpaper

Forms 4549 where the examining officer’s signature should appear;

second, RA Jackson prepared the Forms 4549 for 2004 and 2005 and

gave them to Mr. Marlow on March 5, 2007, when she concluded her

examination, but the workpaper Forms 4549 are dated March 13,
                               - 8 -

2007; and third (and most telling), the workpaper Forms 4549

could not have been prepared on March 5 or 13, 2007, because the

workpaper Forms 4549 are labeled “Form 4549 (Rev. 3-2008)” and,

thus, were not in use until March 2008.

     RA Jackson closed petitioners’ case and sent it to her

general manager for review and approval on March 14, 2007.    RA

Jackson’s general manager did not testify at trial, and nothing

in the record reveals any action he may have taken regarding the

assessments of petitioners’ deficiencies for 2004 and 2005.

     When a case is closed, the revenue agent’s group manager

sends the file forward for further processing using a Form 3210,

Document Transmittal.   If a case is closed as agreed, the case is

sent to Central Case Processing (CCP) for assessment.   If a case

is closed as unagreed, the case is sent to Technical Services.

     The IRS maintains a system known as the Examination Returns

Control System (ERCS) to control examination inventory and

document the audit trail of a case.    ERCS status 51 indicates the

case is in transit to CCP for assessment.   ERCS status 21

indicates that the case is being sent to Technical Services.    The

ERCS will also show when the tax examiner returns the case file

to the revenue agent’s group because the Form 4549 is not

properly executed.   The record does not identify the status of

such an action.
                                - 9 -

     Before a case is sent from the revenue agent to CCP, the

revenue agent’s general manager reviews the file to make sure

that signed agreements are in the file, and he will document on

Form 9984, either in handwriting or by other notation, that he

reviewed the file and submitted it to the CCP group for

processing.    The Form 9984 does not include a handwritten or

other notation from RA Jackson’s general manager indicating that

he reviewed signed Forms 4549 and submitted the file for

processing.    Respondent did not produce the Form 3210 sending

petitioners’ file to CCP for processing.

     When an agreed closed case is received in CCP, it is

assigned to a tax examiner, who must verify that there is a

signed Form 4549 in the case file and check the figures on the

documents.    If a tax examiner determines that the Form 4549 is

not properly executed, CCP returns the case file to the revenue

agent’s group.    No tax examiner testified that he or she verified

that the Forms 4549 in the case file were signed by petitioners.

     The ERCS report for petitioners’ account shows that

petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 case was initially closed as agreed

with status 51 but later changed to status 53 as special

interest; at the same time it was updated to status 53, it was

also assigned to a tax examiner; and then again 5 days later it

went into Status 90, which is closed.    The record does not

explain what status 53 special interest means.
                              - 10 -

     Respondent did not issue petitioners a notice of deficiency

for 2004 or 2005.   On April 16, 2007, the IRS assessed additional

taxes of $18,913 for 2004 and $16,720 for 2005.    The assessed

amount of $16,720 for 2005 varies from the 2005 proposed

assessment amount of $16,733 listed by RA Jackson on the

workpaper Form 4549.

     On July 9, 2007, approximately 4 months after the audit

examination, respondent sent petitioners a Final Notice of Intent

to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing for 2004 and 2005.

Petitioners then sought assistance from the Legal Aid Society of

Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands.   Their counsel, Mary

Michelle Gillum (Ms. Gillum), represented them during their CDP

hearing.

     Mr. Marlow explained to Ms. Gillum that he believed

petitioners had paid all taxes owed for 2004 and 2005 but that he

could not prove he was entitled to deductions disallowed during

the audit because his records had been destroyed in the fire.     He

hoped that Ms. Gillum could help them compromise the liabilities

because they could not afford to pay the assessed taxes.

     On July 25, 2007, Ms. Gillum timely submitted on

petitioners’ behalf a request for a face-to-face CDP hearing

challenging their 2004 and 2005 tax liabilities.    In the request,

petitioners’ counsel stated that petitioners had not received

statutory notices of deficiency and had not had an opportunity to
                               - 11 -

discuss the tax liabilities with Appeals and asserted that they

qualified for a collection alternative, such as currently not

collectible status.    In the letter attached to the request,

petitioners’ counsel reiterated that petitioners had not received

any notices of deficiency and that the examiner had made errors

and unreasonable assumptions about petitioners’ self-employment

income and expenses.

     Petitioners’ case was assigned to Settlement Officer Suzanne

Magee (SO Magee).   SO Magee informed Ms. Gillum in a letter dated

October 3, 2007, that the hearing would be a telephone conference

on November 6, 2007.    She stated that petitioners were not

entitled to a face-to-face hearing because they did not qualify

for any collection alternatives.    Additionally, she stated that

she could not consider the underlying tax liabilities because

petitioners had agreed to additional income tax assessments for

2004 and 2005 “by signing Form 870 on March 13, 2007.”

     On October 30, 2007, SO Magee requested petitioners’ 2004

and 2005 tax returns but at that time did not request the

administrative files for those years.    Subsequently, SO Magee

scheduled and held a face-to-face hearing on November 5, 2007.

Before she held the CDP hearing, SO Magee reviewed the computer

files of petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 accounts.

     At the CDP hearing Ms. Gillum stated that petitioners would

not be challenging the liabilities because they had lost all
                               - 12 -

their documents in the fire.   She said that petitioners did not

believe they had signed forms agreeing to additional taxes and

requested that SO Magee provide copies of any forms that were

signed by petitioners.   SO Magee said she did not have copies of

the forms but had requested them.   She explained that the

computer indicated that the petitioners had signed Forms 870 for

2004 and 2005.   She said that if she received copies of the

agreements to the assessments signed by petitioners, she would

forward them to petitioners’ counsel.   No agreements to the

assessments signed by petitioners were ever provided to

petitioners’ counsel.

     At the CDP hearing petitioners’ counsel submitted on their

behalf (1) Form 656, Offer In Compromise, offering to settle all

of petitioners’ tax debts for 2004 and 2005 (also including

2006), for $6,232.34,(2) Form 656-A, Application for Waiver of

Filing Fee and Payment, (3) Form 433-A, Collection

Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed

Individuals, and (4) financial information supporting items

listed on the From 433-A.   SO Magee rejected petitioners’ OIC.

     On June 30, 2008, respondent’s Appeals Office issued the

notice to petitioners determining that their financial condition

rendered the proposed levy action inappropriate and, therefore,

the accounts would be placed in currently not collectible status.

SO Magee stated in the attachment to the determination notice
                              - 13 -

that she had verified that the IRS followed all requirements of

applicable law and administrative procedure and that the records

showed that petitioners had agreed to the additional assessments.

She stated that she had verified through transcript analysis that

the assessments were made pursuant to section 6201.   She stated

that she had “verified posting of TC 520 for the correct date on

all periods listed on the CDP hearing request per review of

computer transcripts which means the levy action has been

suspended and the collection period allowed by statute to collect

these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes

for the tax periods at issue.”   SO Magee stated that since

petitioners had signed the appropriate documents agreeing with

the additional assessments during the audit process, they were

barred from raising the tax liabilities issue in the CDP hearing.

Although petitioners’ counsel had requested copies of the

documents during the face-to-face CDP hearing, SO Magee stated in

the attachment to the determination notice that petitioners’

counsel stated during their conference that petitioners were no

longer raising the issue of their underlying liabilities in the

hearing.   Finally, SO Magee concluded that petitioners’ OIC was

not an acceptable collection alternative because their reasonable

collection potential is greater than the amount offered.
                              - 14 -

     After respondent’s Appeals Office issued the notice of

determination, SO Magee requested petitioners’ administrative

files, but she never received them.

     The IRS began searching for the administrative files for

2004 and 2005 in late April 2009 or about 3 weeks before the

trial; the files, including the Forms 4549, were never found.

Petitioners’ administrative files for 2004 and 2005 are not old

enough to have been destroyed.

     Before the trial of this case, RA Jackson asked CCP

personnel to search for petitioners’ administrative files, but

they were unable to find them.   However, she did review the

electronic case file.

     Laura Fairchild (Ms. Fairchild) is an IRS program analyst

assigned to the ERCS unit who testified during the trial.     She

made a special request for petitioners’ administrative files for

2004 and 2005 2 weeks before trial but did not receive them.     Ms.

Fairchild admitted that if the IRS had followed normal procedures

it would have petitioners’ administrative files with the original

Forms 4549 containing the signed waivers agreeing to the

additional assessments for 2004 and 2005.

                            Discussion

I.   Section 6330 Hearing

     Section 6330(a) provides the general rule that no levy may

be made on any property or right to property of any taxpayer
                               - 15 -

unless the Secretary has provided 30 days’ advance notice to the

taxpayer of the right to an administrative hearing before the

levy is carried out.   If the taxpayer makes a timely request for

an administrative hearing, it is conducted by the IRS Appeals

Office before an impartial officer.     Sec. 6330(b)(1), (3).

     The taxpayer may raise any relevant issue during the

hearing, including appropriate spousal defenses and challenges to

“the appropriateness of collection actions”, and may make “offers

of collection alternatives, which may include the posting of a

bond, the substitution of other assets, an installment agreement,

or an offer-in-compromise.”    Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).   The taxpayer

also may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the

underlying tax liability if he/she did not receive a notice of

deficiency for that liability or did not otherwise have an

opportunity to dispute it.    Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

     Section 6330(c)(1) requires the Appeals officer to obtain

verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any

applicable law or administrative procedure have been met.

Following the hearing, the Appeals Office issues a notice of

determination indicating whether the proposed levy may proceed.

In making the determination, the Appeals officer must take into

consideration the verification obtained under section 6330(c)(1),

issues properly raised by the taxpayer, and whether any proposed

collection action balances the need for the efficient collection
                                - 16 -

of taxes with the taxpayer’s legitimate concern that any

collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.    Sec.

6330(c)(3).

      Under section 6330(d)(1) the taxpayer may petition this

Court to review the determination made by the Appeals Office.

See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.    This Court has

the authority to review an issue arising under the verification

requirement of section 6330(c)(1) regardless of whether the

taxpayer raised it at the CDP hearing.     Hoyle v. Commissioner,

131 T.C. 197, 200-203 (2008).

II.   Verification

      As relevant here, applicable law prohibits the IRS from

assessing a deficiency in income tax unless either a notice of

deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address or

the taxpayer has signed a valid waiver of restrictions on

assessment of the tax.2   Sec. 6213(a), (d); see also Manko v.

Commissioner, 126 T.C. 195, 200-201 (2006); Freije v.

Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 34-37 (2005).

      Taxpayers who have filed a joint Federal income tax return

under section 6013 are treated separately for purposes of


      2
      A notice of deficiency provides taxpayers with important
procedural safeguards by allowing them 90 days, or 150 days if
the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, to
petition this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency as a
prerequisite to assessment. Commissioner v. Shapiro, 424 U.S.
614, 616-617 (1976).
                              - 17 -

determining the validity of the assessment.   Dolan v.

Commissioner, 44 T.C. 420 (1965).   Before assessing an income tax

deficiency with respect to a joint return, the IRS must send a

notice of deficiency to both spouses at their last known address

(or addresses) or each must sign a waiver of restrictions on

assessment of the tax.   A notice of deficiency sent to one spouse

is ineffective against the other spouse.   A waiver signed by one

spouse does not apply to the other spouse, and a valid assessment

cannot be made against the spouse who did not sign the waiver.

     If a tax can be properly assessed without the issuance of a

statutory notice of deficiency, the legal and procedural

requirements that the Appeals officer is required to verify under

section 6330(c)(1) are that a valid assessment was made,3 that

notice and demand was issued, that the liability was not paid,

and that the Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your

Right to a Hearing was issued to the taxpayer.   Ron Lykins, Inc.

v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op. at 17).

Where the IRS has assessed additional taxes from deficiencies in

the tax reported on joint returns, the Appeals officer also must

obtain verification that either valid notices of deficiency were


     3
      Federal taxes are assessed when they are formally recorded
on a record of assessment. Sec. 6203. 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.” Sec. 301.6203-1,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
                               - 18 -

sent to the taxpayers at their last known address (or addresses)

or appropriate waivers were signed by each spouse.    See Hoyle v.

Commissioner, supra; Manko v. Commissioner, supra at 200-201;

Freije v. Commissioner, supra at 34-37.    An Appeals officer’s

determination to proceed with collection of an assessment made

without obtaining verification that proper deficiency procedures

were followed is an error as a matter of law and is therefore an

abuse of discretion.    Freije v. Commissioner, supra at 36;

Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003); Kovacevich v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-160; Upchurch v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2007-181.

       Section 6330 does not require that an Appeals officer rely

upon a particular document in order to satisfy the verification

requirement.    Sec. 6330(c)(1); Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.

252, 262 (2002).    Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments,

Payments, and Other Specified Matters, contain all the

information required under section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin.

Regs., and generally are sufficient verification that the taxes

were assessed and remain unpaid.    Jordan v. Commissioner, 134

T.C.     ,    (2010) (slip op. at 21) (citing Nestor v.

Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002)).

       However, where additional income taxes over those reported

on the taxpayer’s return are assessed, Form 4340 and other

computerized records, standing alone, are not verification that
                              - 19 -

the requirements of all applicable law and administrative

procedure have been met as required by section 6330(c)(1).

Although computerized records may show that the tax was assessed

and remains unpaid and that a notice of deficiency was sent or an

IRS waiver form has been received, such records do not verify

that the notice of deficiency was mailed to the taxpayer’s last

known address or that the waiver form was not modified and signed

by the taxpayer.   In such a situation, if the taxpayer alleges

that he did not receive a notice of deficiency and/or denies that

he waived the restrictions on assessment, the Appeals officer

will be required to do more than consult the computerized

records; he must “examine underlying documents”.4   Hoyle v.

Commissioner, supra at 205 n.7; see also, e.g., Casey v.

Commissioner, T.C.   Memo. 2009-131 (the Appeals officer examined

originals of notices of deficiency mailed to the taxpayer that

were in the administrative file which showed USPS markings

indicating three notifications to the addressee and concluded

that a notice of deficiency had been mailed to the taxpayer and

that he had refused to claim it).

     4
      Chief Counsel Notice CC-2006-019, at 18 (Aug. 18, 2006),
states that an Appeals Officer “may rely on a Form 4340 to verify
the validity of an assessment, unless the taxpayer can identify
an irregularity in the assessment procedure” and acknowledges
that, where it is alleged that a notice of deficiency was not
mailed, the Appeals officer may be required “to examine
underlying documents in addition to the tax transcripts, such as
the taxpayer’s return, a copy of the notice of deficiency, and
the certified mailing list”.
                              - 20 -

     RA Jackson audited petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 returns and

determined that petitioners owed additional tax for each year

over the amount they reported on their return.   Unless

petitioners signed a valid waiver for each year, the IRS could

not assess those deficiencies without mailing notices of

deficiency to petitioners at their last known address.

Respondent concedes that notices of deficiency were not issued to

petitioners for the deficiencies assessed for 2004 and 2005.

Consequently, the assessments of the deficiencies were not valid

if petitioners did not sign valid waivers of restrictions on

assessments under section 6213(d), and SO Magee was required to

obtain verification that Mr. Marlow and Mrs. Marlow had each

signed appropriate waivers.

     Before conducting the CDP hearing SO Magee did not request

the administrative files for petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 tax

years.   She did order petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 income tax

returns, which presumably were in the administrative files, but

she never received them.   At the CDP hearing, petitioners’

counsel requested copies of signed waiver forms.   SO Magee

indicated that she was relying on computer entries showing signed

Forms 870 and agreed to provide copies of the signed forms when

she obtained them.   She later requested the administrative files

but never received them.   Her determination stated that she

verified compliance with the applicable law and administrative
                              - 21 -

procedure, but it did not explain the basis for the 2004 and 2005

assessments.   The copies of computer files of petitioners’

accounts upon which SO Magee relied do not verify that

petitioners executed and filed proper waivers required by section

6213(d).

     Section 6213(d) unambiguously provides that the waiver must

entail “a signed notice in writing filed with the Secretary”.    It

is important for the Commissioner to keep a written signed waiver

of restrictions on assessments on file in his administrative

records because the waiver may not have been signed by either

spouse or may have been signed by only one spouse filing a joint

return; the waiver may have been signed after the statutory

period for assessing the tax expired; the waiver may have

included only one year when more than one year is at issue; or

the waiver executed by the taxpayers may have included conditions

that would invalidate the waiver.

     We hold that SO McGee did not obtain verification that

petitioners signed waivers of the restrictions on assessment of

the additional taxes for 2004 and 2005 and, thus, did not obtain

verification that all requirements of applicable law and

administrative procedure had been met.

     We have the discretion to remand a case to the Appeals

Office for consideration of a matter that was inadequately

considered in the CDP hearing, and there are circumstances in
                               - 22 -

which a remand is appropriate to clarify a verification under

section 6330(c)(1).   See Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197

(2008).   Written waivers signed by petitioners would be the best

evidence that they waived the restrictions on assessment of the

additional taxes for 2004 and 2005.     However, SO McGee was unable

to find the administrative files that should have included the

Forms 4549 purportedly signed by petitioners, and respondent was

unable to obtain them before or during the proceedings.    We think

it unlikely that the Forms 4549 (or Forms 870) would be found

were we to remand this case to the Appeals Office.    In these

circumstances, we conclude remand is not necessary and would not

be productive.    See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189

(2001).

II.   Validity of Assessment

      Section 6501(a) generally provides that a valid assessment

of income tax liability may not be made more than 3 years after

the later of the date the tax return was filed or the due date of

the tax return.   Petitioners timely filed their 2004 return on or

before April 15, 2005, and filed their 2005 return on or before

April 15, 2006.   Respondent assessed the additional taxes for

2004 and 2005 on April 16, 2007, within the 3-year period.

However, section 6213 dictates that an assessment of a tax

deficiency is invalid if the Commissioner fails to issue a notice

of deficiency or procure and keep on file a signed written waiver
                              - 23 -

of the restrictions on assessment of the tax deficiency.    Notices

of deficiency were not issued to petitioners.    Respondent asserts

petitioners signed the original Forms 4549 consenting to the

assessment of the additional taxes for 2004 and 2005 but concedes

that the IRS has been unable to find the administrative files

containing the original Forms 4549.    Petitioners contend that

they did not file signed waivers of restrictions on assessment of

the additional taxes for 2004 and 2005.

     In Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 144-145 (2002), we

held that the expiration of the assessment period is a liability

challenge subject to de novo review.    In the present case,

petitioners challenge the validity of the underlying assessments

on the ground they were entered in violation of the normal

deficiency procedures.   Thus, we conclude that the validity of

petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 assessments are subject to a de novo

review by this Court.5

     5
      Respondent argues that pursuant to the Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Robinette v. Commissioner, 439
F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), revg. 123 T.C. 85 (2004), this Court
may not consider evidence beyond the administrative record.
Because sec. 6330 requires a de novo standard of review when
the underlying liability is properly in issue, the administrative
record rule is not applicable to the validity of the assessment
of that liability. Moreover, the administrative record does not
include petitioners’ administrative files. The computerized
records that make up the administrative record in this case are
insufficient to establish that petitioners waived the
restrictions on assessment of the taxes. Thus, were we limited
to the administrative record, we would conclude that respondent
has not met his burden of proving that petitioners had signed
                                                   (continued...)
                              - 24 -

     The Commissioner has the burden of proving the existence and

validity of signed waivers of restrictions on assessments.    Cross

v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 1998); United States

v. McGaughey, 977 F.2d 1067, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992); United States

v. Conry, 631 F.2d 599, 600 (9th Cir. 1980).    Original Forms 4549

prepared by RA Jackson and signed by both petitioners would be

the best evidence.   Respondent has been unable to find the

administrative files containing the Forms 4549 purportedly signed

by petitioners, and the forms have not been provided to the

Court.   Respondent asserts that in these circumstances he can

bypass the best proof and rely on secondary or circumstantial

evidence.6   See Fed. R. Evid. 1004.   Respondent contends that

secondary evidence maintained by the IRS in the form of several

electronic databases and the testimony of witnesses establishes




     5
      (...continued)
valid waivers and further that the period for assessing the taxes
has expired. Finally, we think this case falls within the
following exception to the administrative record rule recognized
by the Court of Appeals in Robinette v. Commissioner, supra at
461 (citing Citizens to Pres. Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S.
402, 420 (1971)): “Of course, where a record created in informal
proceedings does not adequately disclose the basis for the
agency’s decision, then it may be appropriate for the reviewing
court to receive evidence concerning what happened during the
agency proceedings.”
     6
      Respondent cites the unpublished opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Cross v. United States listed in
the table at 149 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 1998), affirming the
District Court.
                                - 25 -

that petitioners executed waivers agreeing to the deficiency

assessments for 2004 and 2005.

     Rule 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that

where an original writing is lost or destroyed, secondary

evidence of the contents of the writing is admissible unless the

proponent lost or destroyed the writings in bad faith.      See

Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-22; McMahon v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-355.       In order to show that a

document is lost, a party must show that a diligent but

unsuccessful search occurred.     United States v. McGaughey, supra

at 1071.   Cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.     A

reasonable search means that the original document must be

obtained by all means possible.     Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v.

Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir. 1965).

     Respondent asserts that petitioners signed the original

Forms 4549 prepared by RA Jackson reporting the changes to

petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 returns, consenting to the assessment

of additional taxes and waiving the restrictions on assessment.

SO Magee initially requested petitioners’ original 2004 and 2005

income tax returns on October 30, 2007.      She later requested

petitioners’ administrative files for those years but never

received or reviewed them before making her determination.         RA

Jackson searched for the administrative files until late April

2009 or about 3 weeks before trial.      Ms. Fairchild also issued a
                                - 26 -

special search request just 2 weeks before trial.     The IRS still

had not found the administrative files the day before trial, and

respondent has not notified the Court that the files were ever

found.   Petitioners’ files were not old enough to have been

destroyed.     We therefore conclude that the original Forms 4549

are lost, and respondent may use secondary evidence to prove the

contents of the forms.     However, the evidence in this case--IRS

computerized records and the testimony of IRS employees--does not

convince us that either Mr. Marlow or Mrs. Marlow signed the

Forms 4549.7

     RA Jackson met with Mr. Marlow but never with Mrs. Marlow.

     During the examination of petitioners’ 2004 and 2005

returns, Mr. Marlow never agreed that he owed the additional 2004

and 2005 taxes.    Rather, RA Jackson assumed Mr. Marlow agreed.

She testified as follows:

     7
      Again, respondent points to the unpublished opinion in
Cross v. United States, supra (see supra note 6), wherein the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the District
Court’s finding that the Commissioner’s computerized records
established that waivers had been signed by the taxpayer. The
Cross case is distinguishable from this case. In Cross, the
taxpayers contested the validity of assessments 9 years after the
alleged assessment date and testified that they could not recall
whether they had signed a waiver form. The Court of Appeals
indicated that it would have been a much closer case if the
taxpayers had testified that they believed they had not signed
the waiver form. By contrast, in the instant case both
petitioners testified under oath that they never agreed they owed
additional taxes for 2004 and 2005 or signed any forms consenting
to the assessments. They immediately protested the assessments
when they received a final notice of intent to levy, which was
within 5 months of the examination.
                              - 27 -

     THE COURT: Did he ever expressly state to you that he
     agreed or not.

     RA Jackson:   Well, he never agreed or did not agree.

     MS. GILLUM: So, it is possible he agreed how you
     arrived at the assessments but maybe he didn’t
     understand how you determined he owed the amount of
     money.

     RA Jackson: No, it’s my understanding that he agreed
     to everything * * *.

     RA Jackson sent Mr. Marlow a letter on February 15, 2007,

proposing to audit his 2005 income tax return.   He only had

notice to bring his bank records for the 2005 audit.    During the

examination of the 2005 return on March 5, 2007, RA Jackson

expanded the scope of the audit to 2004.   She made her proposed

2004 assessment solely from percentage changes she made on the

2005 return.   Mr. Marlow did not have his bank records with him

for 2004.   Even if RA Jackson could have assumed that Mr. Marlow

agreed to the 2005 assessment, it seems unlikely that she could

have concluded that Mr. Marlow agreed to the 2004 assessment.    In

any event, it does not mean that petitioners agreed to waive the

restrictions on assessment for 2004 and thus relinquish their

right to contest the validity of the 2004 assessment.

     RA Jackson testified that she did not mail Mrs. Marlow a

waiver form but gave Mr. Marlow Forms 4549 on March 5, 2007, to

return on March 13.   Mrs. Marlow testified that she did not sign

any forms, including a waiver.   While RA Jackson testified that

she remembers seeing waivers signed by both petitioners, her
                               - 28 -

testimony appears to be inconsistent in some respects.    For

example, she testified that she typically signs her report–-the

Form 4549--when she issues it and that she issued the Forms 4549,

reporting the changes to petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 returns, on

March 5, 2007.    Her examination activities and summaries logged

on the Form 9984 confirm that the forms were issued on March 5,

2007.    However, the workpaper Forms 4549 are dated March 13,

2007.8

     Respondent cites two other cases.    The first, Furniture

Mktg. Specialists, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-501, involved a motion for summary

judgment that never reached the merits of the case.    The second,

Huffmeyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-48, permitted

secondary evidence when the Commissioner could not find an

original or copy of a consent form extending the limitations

period for assessment.    In Huffmeyer, although the taxpayers were

unable to remember whether they had signed a consent form, their

subsequent actions were consistent with a signed consent.

     This case is different from Huffmeyer in several respects.

First, this case does not involve the execution of a form

extending the period of limitations on assessment in section

6501(c)(4).    It involves the execution of waiver forms that


     8
      RA Jackson explained that the date on the workpapers Forms
4549 reflects the last date she ran the program to doublecheck
the figures.
                              - 29 -

deprive petitioners of their right to petition proposed

deficiency assessments in a prepayment forum pursuant to section

6213.   By using waiver forms whose existence is contested to

deprive petitioners of their appeal rights is precisely the harm

Congress sought to avoid in enacting section 6213.    In both of

the cases respondent cites, notices of deficiency were sent to

the taxpayers and they were given an opportunity to challenge the

deficiencies in this Court without first paying the assessments.

Also, section 6501(c)(4) does not require that the written waiver

be “filed with the Secretary” as required by section 6123(d).

     Second, while RA Jackson attested that she remembered seeing

signed forms, Mr. and Mrs. Marlow each provided positive

affirmations under oath that they did not agree with the

assessments and, most importantly, they did not sign forms

agreeing to waive the restrictions on assessment.    Further, RA

Jackson acknowledged that she did not meet with Mrs. Marlow and

was not sure whether Mr. Marlow agreed or disagreed with the

assessments at their March 5, 2007, meeting, but assumed he had

agreed.

     The Commissioner’s internal procedures provide that the

revenue agent’s group manager review the audit files and enter a

handwritten or other note on Form 9984 verifying signed waivers

before submitting the files to CCP for further processing.      RA

Jackson’s Form 9984 does not include a handwritten or other note
                              - 30 -

from her group manager indicating that petitioners signed waivers

or the date thereof.   Further, RA Jackson’s Form 9984 includes

conditional, anticipatory language written in the future tense

stating that Mr. Marlow would show Mrs. Marlow the report and

waivers on Forms 4549 and that they should be returned to her by

March 13, 2007.

     Third, it appears that petitioners’ subsequent actions are

consistent with their affirmations that they did not agree to the

taxes or agree to waive their right to petition this Court.      The

initial audit took place on March 5, 2007, and was closed on

March 14, 2007, just 9 days later.     RA Jackson expanded the 2005

audit to include 2004 on March 5, 2007, but petitioners were

given notice only of a 2005 audit, and Mr. Marlow’s bank records

for 2004 were not available on March 5, 2007.    At their first

real opportunity to dispute the taxes after audit, petitioners

raised liability challenges to the 2004 and 2005 assessments in

their request for a CDP hearing just 5 months later.    Unlike the

taxpayers in Huffmeyer v. Commissioner, supra, petitioners had

not agreed to prior or subsequent income tax deficiency

assessments.   Although they remembered signing a form before the

audit, it was the power of attorney form for Vicki Mayes.    Their

power of attorney, as noted by RA Jackson, did not extend to

involvement in the audits, and RA Jackson did not share her

proposed adjustments with Ms. Mayes.    Unlike the Huffmeyers,
                              - 31 -

petitioners did not engage in a 5-year period of actions

consistent with an agreement that they owed the taxes.

     Petitioners never agreed that they owed the additional taxes

for 2004 and 2005.   Mr. Marlow believed that petitioners had

accurately reported their taxes on their returns for 2004 and

2005, but he was unable to substantiate deductions disallowed by

RA Jackson because his records had been destroyed in the fire

that had consumed petitioners’ residence and all their personal

property.   For that reason and because SO Magee had informed them

that they would not be allowed to present liability challenges at

the CDP hearing, petitioners did not present proof of their

claimed erroneous assessments at that hearing.   But Ms. Gillum

made it clear at that hearing that petitioners did not believe

they had signed any waivers, and she specifically requested

copies of the Forms 870 because SO McGee had stated that the

computerized records showed petitioners had filed such forms

waiving the restrictions on assessments of the taxes for 2004 and

2005.   Although petitioners did not think they owed the

additional taxes, Ms. Gillum focused most of her attention on

petitioners’ OIC because petitioners could never retrieve the

records destroyed in the fire and they were worried about their

inability to pay the additional taxes.

     We are convinced that petitioners never agreed that they

owed the additional taxes.   Moreover, respondent has not met his
                             - 32 -

burden of proving that petitioners agreed to the assessments of

the taxes or waived restrictions on the assessments.

     In Med. Practice Solutions, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2009-214, we remanded the case to the Appeals Office for proper

verification of compliance with applicable law.   We noted,

however:

     By ordering a remand, we do not mean to imply that
     verification of compliance with applicable law is
     optional for the appeals officer. On the contrary, it
     is plainly the intention of Congress that such
     verification precede a collection determination in
     every case. The appeals officer certainly may not give
     verification short shrift in his CDP hearings and then,
     in the fraction of cases that eventually come before
     this Court, count on a remand to give him a second
     chance to fulfill that statutory obligation. Our
     review of the appeals officer’s verification under
     section 6330(c)(1) sometimes results in a finding,
     based on the evidence, that a given requirement of law
     has not been met and that an assessment is invalid.
     See, e.g., Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 34-36
     (2005). In appropriate circumstances, a lack of
     evidence in the record (e.g., evidence of a timely
     assessment) might result not in a remand but in an
     affirmative finding, based on a failure of proof, that
     the requirement has not been met. [Id. n.20.]

     Here we make the affirmative finding that the assessments of

the taxes without first issuing notices of deficiency were

invalid because petitioners never waived the restrictions on the

assessments.

     It is a bit ironic that petitioners could not prove that

they did not underreport their taxes because they could not

produce destroyed documents they assert would provide the proof,

and respondent is unable to prove that the additional taxes were
                                - 33 -

properly assessed because the waivers purportedly signed by

petitioners are lost.

IV.   Conclusion

      We conclude that SO Magee abused her discretion in

determining that the requirements of applicable law or

administrative procedure, as provided in section 6330(c)(1), were

met in this case.

      Although respondent contends that the IRS’ internal

procedures support the presumptive existence of signed valid

waivers by petitioners permitting deficiency assessments of their

2004 and 2005 income taxes and agreeing that they owe such taxes,

we find there are some flaws, inconsistencies, and irregularities

which lead us to conclude on the basis of this record that the

weight of the evidence shows that respondent has failed to carry

his burden of proof under these particular facts and

circumstances.     Accordingly, we hold that respondent’s

assessments on April 16, 2007, of petitioners’ additional income

taxes for 2004 and 2005 are invalid.

      Having so held, we do not need to consider whether

respondent abused his discretion in denying the OIC petitioners

submitted.
                        - 34 -

To reflect the foregoing,

                                  An appropriate decision

                             will be entered.
