- 7 -
In Meyer v. Commissioner, supra at 422-423, we looked behind
the notice of determination to find that the taxpayer was not
offered an Appeals hearing. We then found that the notice of
determination was invalid and that the Tax Court was without
jurisdiction to review the Appeals officer’s determination. Id.
For the reasons discussed below, we now conclude that our opinion
in Meyer was incorrect.
As a preliminary matter, we point out that this Court should
not have decided whether the notice of determination was valid in
Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, because we did not have subject
matter jurisdiction. We have held that we lack jurisdiction
under section 6330(d) when the tax in issue is one over which we
normally do not have jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. ___ (2001); Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171 (2000).
The tax in Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, was a frivolous return
penalty over which we normally have no jurisdiction. We
therefore had no subject matter jurisdiction under section
6330(d). Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324 (2000). In that
situation, section 6330(d) provides that “If a court determines
that the appeal was to an incorrect court, a person shall have 30
days after the court determination to file such appeal with the
correct court.”5 Thus, in Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, we
5See True v. Commissioner, 108 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (M.D. Fla.
2000), holding that the district court lacked subject matter
(continued...)
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