Court Opinion

ID: 9412208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:32.249897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:31.659705
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2307     Doc: 18        Filed: 07/27/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-2307

        WILLIAM ASHFORD,

                           Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                           Respondent - Appellee.

                                             No. 22-2308

        WILLIAM ASHFORD,

                           Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                           Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeals from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. Nos. 17590-18; 2492-19)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                      Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2307      Doc: 18         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Ashford, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory Attorney, Anthony
        T. Sheehan, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2307       Doc: 18         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, William T. Ashford appeals the tax court’s orders

        upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency in his 2013 and 2014 income

        taxes and assessing additions to tax pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), (2), 6654(a). He

        contends that the tax court lacked jurisdiction over his petition because the Internal

        Revenue Service (“IRS”) employees who prepared the substitute returns and signed the

        notices of deficiency lacked the authority to do so. See Ripley v. Comm’r, 103 F.3d 332,

        335 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that valid notice of deficiency is a required for tax court

        jurisdiction).

               The IRS is not required to prepare a substitute return under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)

        before determining a deficiency. Selgas v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., 475 F.3d 697, 700

        (5th Cir. 2007). We therefore conclude that the authority or lack thereof of the employee

        who prepared the substitute returns does not affect the validity of the notices of deficiency.

        Rather, a notice of deficiency is valid “as long as it informs a taxpayer that the IRS has

        determined that a deficiency exists and specifies the amount of the deficiency.” Id. We

        likewise reject Ashford’s challenge to the authority of the IRS employee who signed the

        notices of deficiency. Notably, the Tax Code does not require that a notice of deficiency

        be signed. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; see also Harriss v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., T.C. Memo.

        2021-31, at *14 (2021) (“courts have consistently rejected . . . challenges to delegated

        authority to sign and issue notices of deficiency”). Because Ashford has failed to overcome

        the presumption of official regularity afforded notices of deficiency, id. at *10-11, we reject

        his challenge to the tax court’s jurisdiction.

                                                         3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2307       Doc: 18          Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

               Ashford’s informal brief does not challenge the tax court’s determination of

        deficiencies in tax or its assessment of additions to tax. We conclude, therefore, that he

        has forfeited appellate review of the substance of the tax court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)

        (confining review to issues raised in informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

        177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit

        rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

               Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s orders. Ashford v. Comm’r of Internal Rev.,

        Nos. 17590-18; 2492-19 (T.C. filed Sept. 29, 2022; entered Sept. 30, 2022). We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                       4