-9-
made a “determination” within the meaning of section 6330(d)(1)
which we have jurisdiction to review.
Respondent acknowledges that petitioner did not have the
Hearing described in section 6330. All the same, respondent
argues, the decision letter issued to petitioner as to the
equivalent hearing reflects a “determination” sufficient to
invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1). We
agree. The Treasury Department regulations interpreting section
6330 recognize specifically that there are two types of hearings
which may be conducted by Appeals in connection with section
6330; i.e., Hearings and equivalent hearings. As explained
below, the Treasury Department regulations state that an Appeals
officer will consider at an equivalent hearing the same issues as
at a Hearing, and that the contents of the decision letter that
results from an equivalent hearing will generally be the same as
in the notice of determination that results from a Hearing.
As to a Hearing, the statute provides that a taxpayer has a
right to a Hearing with an Appeals officer before a levy may be
made upon his or her property, if the Hearing is timely requested
by the taxpayer. Sec. 6330(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(B), and (b)(1).
3(...continued)
2001, and the petition was postmarked Nov. 21, 2001. Whereas the
petition was actually filed by the Court when received on Dec.
28, 2001, the approximately 6-week delivery time was attributable
to delays in the receipt of mail experienced by the Court because
of anthrax.
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