- 12 -
As previously discussed, because petitioner Dudley Moorhous
failed to file a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing,
the Appeals Office was not obliged to conduct such a hearing. In
this regard, the decision letter issued to petitioner Dudley
Moorhous was not, and did not purport to be, a determination
letter pursuant to section 6320 or section 6330. See Kennedy v.
Commissioner, supra; Offiler v. Commissioner, supra at 495.
Consistent with the foregoing, we shall grant respondent’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner
Dudley Moorhous on the ground that the Appeals Office did not
issue a determination letter to petitioner Dudley Moorhous
pursuant to section 6330 due to petitioner Dudley Moorhous’
failure to file a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing
pursuant to section 6330(a)(2) and (3)(B) and (b). In addition,
we shall strike all references in the petition to the taxable
years 1987 and 1988 because those years relate solely to
petitioner Dudley Moorhous; likewise, we shall strike all
references to the taxable year 1997 because (1) such year relates
to petitioner Dudley Moorhous and (2) that year was not included
in the notice of intent to levy and the determination letter that
were issued to petitioner Dorothy Moorhous.
4. Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners contend that because petitioners filed joint
returns for a number of the years in issue, the term “person” as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011