-12-
officer concludes an equivalent hearing by issuing a decision
letter, as opposed to a notice of determination, the different
names which are assigned to these documents are merely a
distinction without a difference when it comes to our
jurisdiction over this case, where a Hearing was timely
requested. The decision letter contains all of the information
required by section 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E8, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., to be included in a notice of determination but for the
fact that the decision letter ordinarily states in regard to most
issues that a taxpayer may not (as opposed to may) seek judicial
review of the decision.5 Id.; cf. sec. 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-I5,
Proced. & Admin. Regs. (taxpayer may in certain cases contest in
court the Appeals officer’s decision in an equivalent hearing to
deny a claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015).
Under the facts herein, where Appeals issued the decision
letter to petitioner in response to his timely request for a
Hearing, we conclude that the “decision” reflected in the
decision letter issued to petitioner is a “determination” for
purposes of section 6330(d)(1). Cf. Moorhous v. Commissioner,
116 T.C. 263, 270 (2001) (decision reflected in a decision letter
5 Nor do we find a distinction for purposes of our
jurisdiction in the fact that the Treasury Department’s
regulations provide that a taxpayer’s request for an equivalent
hearing neither automatically suspends the levy actions which are
subject of the Hearing nor the running of any period of
limitations under secs. 6502, 6531, or 6532. Sec. 301.6330-
1(i)(2), Q&A-I1 and 2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011