- 9 -
Because we lack jurisdiction to review respondent’s lien and levy
determination to proceed with collection of the frivolous return
penalty, we will not decide whether the hearing requirement under
section 6330(b) was met. This is consistent with the principle
that we need not decide whether a valid notice of deficiency was
issued where we lack subject matter jurisdiction.2 See Yuen v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 123, 130 (1999) (we need not decide
whether a document sent by the Commissioner is a final
determination where we lack jurisdiction over a claim for
interest abatement). We will no longer follow Meyer v.
Commissioner, supra, to the extent it holds to the contrary.
The doctrine of stare decisis is important to this and other
Federal courts. Hesselink v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 94, 99-100
(1991). When we decided Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, lien and
levy cases under section 6330 were new to this Court. After an
additional year of experience with section 6330, we no longer
believe it is appropriate for us to decide whether the hearing
requirement was met in a case over which we lack subject matter
2 Although it is not necessary for the holding herein, we
note that in Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. (2001), we
held that we have jurisdiction under sec. 6330(d)(1)(A) when we
have a facially correct notice of determination and a timely
filed petition.
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