Moreover, § 6201 authorizes and requires the IRS to “make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes.” 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a). Thus, the sixth cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

See Amended Complaint ¶ 25. Barrett’s Amended Complaint states that “[u]nder IRC § 6201(d) the Secretary has the burden to provide reasonable and probative information in addition to the Form W-2 reported to the IRS by BAE Systems.” Amended Complaint ¶ 25.

See, e.g., Smith v. Comm’r, 133 T.C. 424, 428-30 (2009) (holding that the section 6707A penalty is not within the Tax Court’s deficiency jurisdiction). 26 U.S.C. § 6201 generally allows the IRS to assess all taxes and penalties imposed by the Code. Section 6211 defines a “deficiency” as “income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44.”

These Form 4340s are probative evidence. They establish that the tax liabilities were properly assessed against Mr. Lehmann by a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary of Treasury, 26 U.S.C. §§ 6201-6203, and that the notices and demand for payment of the liabilities were properly sent. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6303(a) & 6321.

Even if it were, a formal assessment would not be necessary. See United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172, 1174-75 (7th Cir. 1984) (discussing 26 U.S.C. § 6201 and stating: “In sum, tax assessment proceedings are civil in nature and are not normally a prerequisite to criminal liability.”).

Based on these facts, as demonstrated below, the United States is entitled to summary judgment in this case against Stanley Wade, Janet Wade, and the entities on all the claims listed in its Complaint. III. STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS A. Reduce Federal Tax Assessments for Years 1993 Through 2004 To Judgment LEGAL ELEMENT: Pursuant to I.R.C. §§ 6201 and 6203, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made timely and correct assessments for federal individual income taxes, plus statutory penalties and interest accruing thereto, against Mr. Wade for tax years 1993 through 2004. Undisputed Material Facts 1.

See generally 26 U.S.C. § 6201.

As to Defendant’s assertion as an affirmative defense that “the redetermination of plaintiff’s entire federal income tax liability for the litigated tax years” is at issue and necessary 2 Sokolow v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“However, Congress superseded Lewis, by statute”). 3 See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. §6201(d) and §7491(a). Case 2:16-cv-00339-RSL Document 31 Filed 01/31/17 Page 8 of 11 9 because “the United States is entitled to reduce that overpayment based on any additional tax liabilities that the Plaintiffs [sic] may owe,” Defendant has produced nothing to meet his burden of proof with respect to this affirmative defense.

See generally 26 U.S.C. § 6201.

Substantively, Mr. Oliver’s Complaints paint the lawful investigation and audit of a paid tax return preparer as a Fourth Amendment violation. See generally 26 U.S.C. § 6201.