Laszloffy v. Commissioner

297 F. App'x 628
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 24, 2008·No. No. 07-71447·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

John Alfred Laszloffy appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s determination to collect by levy unpaid federal income taxes for 1992 and 1993. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that Laszloffy could not challenge the underlying tax liability because he received a notice of the deficiency and failed to file a timely petition for redetermination of taxes. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(c)(2)(B). Contrary to Laszloffy’s contention, the notice of deficiency was not invalid under Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir.1987).

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment to the Commissioner because Form 4340 established that the IRS made a valid tax assessment and sent Laszloffy a proper notice of assessment and demand for payment. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (concluding that Form 4340 established that IRS sent a notice of assessment and demand for payment); Hughes v. Comm’r, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir.1992) (explaining that Form 4340 is [630] presumptive evidence of a valid assessment). Laszloffy failed to present any contrary evidence.

Laszlofiy’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Laszloffy v. Commissioner, 297 F. App'x 628 (9th Cir. 2008).

297 F. App'x 628 (Laszloffy v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Millett
D. Montana, 2023
Waltner v. United States
D. Arizona, 2020
United States v. Joseph D. Meyer
914 F.3d 592 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)
Laszloffy v. Comm'r
2010 T.C. Memo. 258 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)