- 11 -
2. Equivalent Hearing
In lieu of a hearing under section 6330(b), the Appeals
Office granted petitioner Dudley Moorhous a so-called equivalent
hearing. Consistent with the Court’s holding in Kennedy v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. ___ (2001), we hold that the decision to
conduct an equivalent hearing did not result in a waiver by
respondent of the time restrictions within which petitioner
Dudley Moorhous was required to request an Appeals Office hearing
under section 6330.5
3. Decision Letter
On October 6, 2000, following the equivalent hearing, the
Appeals Office issued to petitioner Dudley Moorhous a decision
letter stating that respondent would proceed with collection
against him. The decision letter unambiguously states that the
equivalent hearing was not intended to serve as an Appeals Office
hearing within the meaning of section 6330. On the other hand,
on October 6, 2000, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner
Dorothy Moorhous a determination letter stating that she would be
permitted to seek review of the matter in court.
5 In Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. ___ (2001), we noted
that sec. 6330 does not authorize the Commissioner to waive the
time restrictions imposed therein. Further, in Offiler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000), we indicated that where
the taxpayer failed to file a timely request for an Appeals
Office hearing regarding a notice of intent to levy, an Appeals
Office review of the taxpayer’s case pursuant to the Collection
Appeals Program did not result in a determination within the
meaning of sec. 6320 or sec. 6330.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011