- 8 -
controls this issue, and thus we will dismiss this case for lack
of jurisdiction.
B. Whether We Will Decide If Respondent Failed To Hold a
Hearing as Required by Section 6330(b) in a Case in Which We
Lack Jurisdiction To Review the Lien and Levy Determination
Petitioners contend that respondent’s determination is
invalid because, according to petitioners, respondent failed to
comply with the hearing requirement provided by section
6330(b)(1).
In Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000), as here, the
taxpayers contended that we lacked jurisdiction to review the
lien and levy determination on the ground that the section
6330(b) hearing requirement was not met. The Commissioner moved
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that we lacked
jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability (frivolous return
penalty), see Van Es v. Commissioner, supra, and that the
petitions were not filed within the 30-day period prescribed by
section 6330(d)(1)(A). We held in Meyer that we lacked
jurisdiction on the ground that the determination letters were
invalid because the Appeals Office did not provide the taxpayers
with an opportunity for a hearing. Meyer v. Commissioner, supra
at 422-423; see sec. 6330(b).
Here, we lack jurisdiction to review respondent’s lien and
levy determination to proceed with collection of the frivolous
return penalty. Van Es v. Commissioner, supra at 328-329.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011