-2-
Michael Craig, pro se.
Anne W. Durning, for respondent.
OPINION
LARO, Judge: Petitioner, while residing in Scottsdale,
Arizona, petitioned the Court under section 6330(d)(1) to review
respondent’s determination as to his proposed levy upon
petitioner’s property. Respondent proposed the levy to collect
Federal income taxes of approximately $10,656.55 for 1990,
$12,192.27 for 1991, $18,437.01 for 1992, and $307.63 for 1995.1
Currently, the case is before the Court on respondent’s motion
for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty
against petitioner under section 6673(a). Petitioner has filed
with the Court a response to respondent’s motion.
We decide as a matter of first impression whether the Court
has jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1), given that respondent
has never issued to petitioner a notice of determination with
respect to a hearing described in section 6330 (Hearing2).
1 We use the term “approximately” because these amounts were
computed before the present proceeding and have since increased
on account of interest.
2 The parties and the Treasury regulations refer to the
hearing described in sec. 6330 as a “collection due process
hearing” (or a “CDP hearing” for short). That term is not used
in either sec. 6330 or the legislative history underlying the
promulgation of that section. The legislative history refers to
the hearing as a “pre-levy hearing”. H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011