- 8 -
decided an issue regarding the adequacy of the hearing
opportunity and its ramifications which should have been
considered in the first instance by a district court with subject
matter jurisdiction.
Secondly, in Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, our holding that
the notice of determination was invalid was improperly predicated
on facts regarding procedures that were followed prior to the
issuance of the notice of determination rather than on the notice
of determination itself. Id. at 422-423. Our analysis in Meyer
improperly required us to look behind the notice of
determination.
In Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 498, we analogized a
notice of determination issued pursuant to section 6330(c)(3) to
a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212, and said
that the notice of determination is the jurisdictional
“equivalent of a notice of deficiency.”6 In the context of a
5(...continued)
jurisdiction over a sec. 6330 case involving income tax and
noting that the taxpayer had 30 days to file in the Tax Court.
In True, the taxpayer had not been given an opportunity for an
Appeals hearing. The district court properly deferred
consideration of that matter to the Tax Court, which had subject
matter jurisdiction.
6In Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417, 421 (2000), we
correctly stated the role that a notice of determination and
timely petition play in our jurisdiction as follows:
Section 6330(d) imposes certain procedural
prerequisites on judicial review of collection matters.
(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