- 7 -
respondent had misplaced their offer in compromise for 1 year.
Following the hearing, respondent determined that the levy action
should proceed and that interest should not be abated.
OPINION
A. Whether the Tax Court Has Jurisdiction To Review
Respondent’s Determinations Under Section 6330
We first decide whether we have jurisdiction to review
respondent’s determination under section 6330 that reasonable
cause does not exist to abate the addition to tax under section
6651(a)(2) for failure to pay the amount shown on petitioners’
1995 return.3 The Tax Court has jurisdiction to review lien and
levy determinations under section 6330 if we generally have
jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability. Sec.
6330(d)(1)(A); Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324, 327 (2000);
Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000). Thus, we next
consider whether, for purposes of section 6330(d)(1)(A), we
generally have jurisdiction to review determinations that a
taxpayer is liable for the addition to tax under section
6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax.
In Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 883 (1983),
we held that we lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the
3 Neither party contends that we lack jurisdiction.
However, the Court may consider sua sponte whether it has
jurisdiction. Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 272
(2001); Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000); Smith v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 10, 13-14 (1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011