- 35 -
taxpayer does not request a hearing, obviously no hearing is held,
and there can be no determination issued pursuant to section
6330(c)(3). If a taxpayer requests a hearing, and the Appeals
Office does not hold such a hearing, the Appeals Office may not
issue a determination pursuant to section 6330(c)(3), as was the
case in Offiler, Kennedy, and Moorhous, or if the Appeals Office
purports to issue a determination pursuant to section 6330(c)(3),
any such purported determination is not valid. Only after a
hearing is held may a determination be issued. See sec.
6330(c)(3). Only after such a hearing is held and after such a
determination is made may a taxpayer appeal that determination to
this Court (or in certain cases to the District Court). See sec.
6330(d), entitled “Proceeding after hearing” (emphasis added).
2. Rationale for Holding Is Unpersuasive
In tandem, the majority’s holdings in Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. ___ (2001) (Lunsford II), and this case are
groundless assertions of jurisdiction and authority. The majority
attempt to justify their holding that we have jurisdiction by
asserting that an inquiry into whether the Appeals Office failed to
hold a hearing requested by the taxpayer is an exercise of “looking
behind” the notice of determination. Majority op. pp. 8-10. They
assert that to “look behind” the notice of determination to assess
its validity is contrary to case law regarding the validity of a
notice of deficiency. Id.
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