With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1225-28. Because the Appeals Office was not required to provide Wrubleski with verification that proper procedures were followed in assessing his deficiencies for tax years 1998 through 2000, and because the computer-generated records that the Commissioner attached to its motion for summary judgment detailed the record of each assessment and, thus, was sufficient under § 6203, at least where Wrubleski failed to present contradictory evidence, these arguments were without merit. To the extent Wrubleski alternatively is claiming that the t ccompanying regulations, are exclusively and strictly construed. Id. at 1153 (citing Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 288-89, 49 S.Ct. 129, 131-32, 73 L.Ed. 379 (1929)); see also Creel v. C.I.R., 419 F.3d 1135, 1141 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to consider the “Affidavit of

A: holding that even if the agents comments could be construed as an implied promise that cordovaperez would not be prosecuted in federal court cordovaperez is not entitled to the relief he seeks because he has not established that the ins agent was authorized to bind the united states attorney
B: holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen
C: holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority
D: holding that the us attorneys actions would not bind the government even if he intended to compromise a taxpayers civiltax liability if the us attorney did not have authority to reach a compromise
D.