-8-
decision set forth in the decision letter. The decision letter
stated:
Your due process hearing request was not filed
within the time prescribed under Section 6320 and/or
6330. However, you received a hearing equivalent to a
due process hearing except that there is no right to
dispute a decision by the Appeals Office in court under
IRC Sections 6320 and/or 6330.
Discussion
A. Jurisdiction Under Section 6330(d)(1)
We decide for the first time whether we have jurisdiction
under section 6330(d)(1) in the setting at hand. We conclude
that we do. We set forth the relevant text of section 6330 in an
appendix.
Section 6330(d)(1) is the specific provision that governs
our jurisdiction to review a proposed collection action. Our
jurisdiction under that section depends upon the issuance of a
valid notice of determination and a timely petition for review.
E.g., Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000); see also
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 161 (2001). See
generally Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000) (“The
notice of determination provided for in section 6330 is, from a
jurisdictional perspective, the equivalent of a notice of
deficiency.”). Here, petitioner has timely filed a petition with
this Court.3 Thus, we are left to decide whether respondent has
3 The decision letter was sent to petitioner on Oct. 27,
(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