Notice And Demand Invalid When Not Signed

Notice And Demand Invalid Because It Is Not Signed, It Is Not On The Correct Form (Such As Form 17), Or Because No Certificate Of Assessment Is Attached

Notice And Demand InvalidThe Law: Section 6303(a) provides that the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. This notice is to be left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or shall be mailed to such person’s last known address. See also Treas. Reg. 301.6303-1(a) (failure to give notice within 60 days does not invalidate notice).Notice and demand is sufficient for purposes of section 6303 as long as it states the amount due and makes demand for payment. There is no requirement in the statute or regulation that the notice and demand be made on a specific form, have a signature, or include any specific attachments.

Relevant Case Law:

Flathers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-60, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 969 (2003) – court rejected as frivolous and/or groundless petitioner’s argument that she did not receive proper notice and demand under section 6303(a) because, according to petitioner, the IRS must use Form 17 in issuing such notice and demand.Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002) – numerous notices received by petitioner, such as notices of intent to levy and notices of deficiency, were sufficient to meet the requirements of section 6303(a). The form on which notice of assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant, as long as it provides the taxpayer with the information specified in section 6303(a).Keene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 514 (2002) – notices such as final notice of intent to levy and Forms 4340 are sufficient to constitute notice and demand within the meaning of section 6303(a) because they informed petitioner of the amount owed and requested payment. The court rejected petitioner’s argument as frivolous and groundless that a notice and demand for payment was not in accord with a Treasury decision issued in 1914 that required a Form 17 be used for such purpose.