any amount that may have been reported by the taxpayer on his return. § 6211(a).”). 20 . Miles v. United States, 1999 WL 500999, at *1 (N.D.Tex.1999) (citing Moore v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 108 F.2d 656, 659 (6th Cir.1940)). 21 . Murray v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 24 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir.1994) (discussing deficiency notice requirements for assessed tax deficiencies as contrasted against the collection of assessed taxes based on a taxpayer’s return); Meyer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 97 T.C. 555, 560, 1991 WL 238309 (U.S.Tax Ct.1991) (interpreting § 6213(a) as requiring “mailing of notice of deficiency” prior to "assessing or collecting a deficiency”). 22 . Perez v. United States, 2001 WL 1836185, at *8 (W.D.Tex.2001). Accord Koch v. Alexander, 561 F.2d 1115, 1118 (4th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); Miles, 1999 WL 500999 at *2 (rejecting
holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the irs need not be signed in order to be valid holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the commissioner relies for his deficiency determination burden shifts to the commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice holding that plaintifftaxpayers are not entitled to a notice of deficiency because they owe the government only the amount listed on their tax return