- 35 -
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. ___ (2001) (Lunsford I),
virtually any piece of paper entitled “Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330”
confers jurisdiction on this Court and may ultimately deprive the
taxpayer of his statutory right to a hearing.
2. Petitioners Were Not Offered a Hearing
The majority sidestep the hearing issue entirely. Section
6330 requires that the Court decide whether the hearing requested
by petitioners was held, and I shall do so. Respondent, citing
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000), Konkel v.
Commissioner, 86 AFTR 2d 2000-6939, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,520 (M.D.
Fla. 2000), et al., contends that the exchange of correspondence
between petitioners and respondent constitutes the hearing
required by section 6330(b)(1). I reject this contention.
Unlike the correspondence in Katz and Konkel, the correspondence
between petitioners and respondent did not specify the manner in
which the hearing would be conducted. In addition, respondent’s
letter failed to clearly delineate that the exchange of
correspondence would constitute the hearing required by section
6330(b)(1). Indeed, the letter to petitioners does not even
mention a hearing. It merely directs that “If you wish to
discuss other matters, such as resolution of the liability[,]
please contact me by September 16, 1999."
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011