- 11 -
filing of a timely petition for review. See Meyer v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417, 421 (2000); Offiler v. Commissioner,
supra at 498.
As discussed below, we conclude that respondent did not
issue a determination letter to petitioner pursuant to section
6320 or 6330. We therefore lack jurisdiction over the petition.
However, as was the case in Meyer v. Commissioner, supra at 422,
because the basis for dismissal may affect whether respondent can
proceed with collection and/or may otherwise affect petitioner’s
rights, we are obliged to determine the proper ground for
dismissal.
Notice of the Filing of A Notice of Lien
As indicated, respondent concedes that he failed to mail the
notice required by section 6320(a) to petitioner at his last
known address as required under section 6320(a)(2)(C) and that
such notice is therefore invalid. Respondent does not contend
that petitioner actually received the notice required by section
6320(a). Under the circumstances, petitioner was denied the
opportunity to make a timely request for an Appeals Office
hearing because of the misaddressed notice. Accordingly, insofar
as the petition filed herein purports to be a petition for review
pursuant to section 6320, we will dismiss the petition for lack
of jurisdiction on the ground that respondent did not make a
determination under section 6320 because respondent failed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011