- 34 -
any purported determination is invalid. In either case, the Court
simply does not have jurisdiction.
Offiler v. Commissioner, supra, provides the basis upon which
Meyer v. Commissioner, supra, was decided. In Offiler, the
taxpayer did not timely request a hearing under section 6330. We
held that “Because no section 6330 hearing was requested, Appeals
made no determination pursuant to section 6330(c)[(3)]”, Offiler v.
Commissioner, supra at 497, and therefore we did not have
jurisdiction under section 6330(d). Id. at 498.
Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255 (2001), and Moorhous v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263 (2001), also provide strong support for
the holding in Meyer. The Court in both Kennedy and Moorhous
relies on Offiler for its conclusion in each of those cases that
(1) because the taxpayer failed to request timely an Appeals Office
hearing, (2) the Appeals Office was not required to conduct such a
hearing, and (3) the so-called decision letter that the Appeals
Office issued “was not, and did not purport to be, a determination
letter pursuant to section 6320 or section 6330.” Moorhous v.
Commissioner, supra at 270; Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra at 263.
Implicit in the holdings of Offiler, Kennedy, and Moorhous is
that the Appeals Office may make the determination under section
6330(c)(3) only after a taxpayer requested hearing is held. See
Offiler v. Commissioner, supra at 497; Kennedy v. Commissioner,
supra at 263; Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at 270. If a
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011