With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 7609(a)). Because petitioner does not allege improper service and the summons was validly issued to a third-party under section 7609, petitioner’s argument to quash the summons on that ground is without merit. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to quash the IRS summons is DENIED, and respondent’s cross-motion for summary denial of the petition to quash the summons and enforcement of the summons is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Because the record does not reflect any procedural objection to the summons based on improper service under 26 U.S.C. § 7603, both petitioner and Security Mutual have waived their right to raise that objection in connection with the present motion. See United. States v. Myslajek, 568 F.2d 55, 57 (8th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct 3123, 57

A: holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
B: holding that three month delay in objecting to service of summons constituted a waiver of strict compliance with the requirements of section 7603
C: holding that strict compliance is not required
D: holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable
B.