- 9 -
Petitioners do not dispute either point. However, they contend
that the cases should be dismissed on a third ground; i.e., that
the determination letters are invalid.
There is no dispute that the Court lacks jurisdiction in
these cases. Because the basis for dismissal may affect whether
respondent may proceed with collection, we are obliged to
determine the proper ground for dismissal. Assuming that
respondent failed to issue valid determination letters, we will
dismiss the cases on that basis, rather than on either of the
alternative grounds upon which respondent's motions are based.
See, e.g., Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989),
affd. by unpublished opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).
The Court has not previously considered the elements
necessary for a valid determination letter under section 6330.
Suffice it to say, section 6330(b) contemplates that an Appeals
Office hearing, if duly requested by the taxpayer, must precede
the issuance of a determination letter. See Offiler v.
Commissioner, supra. Section 6330(b)(1) plainly states that if a
taxpayer "requests a hearing under subsection (a)(3)(B), such
hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of
Appeals."
In Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. __, ___ (2000)(slip op. at
14-15), we recently held that the Commissioner had complied with
the hearing requirement under section 6330(b)(1) by offering the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011