- 12 -
We recently held that, in determining the validity of a
notice of determination for jurisdictional purposes, we shall not
look behind such a notice in order to ascertain whether the
taxpayer was afforded an appropriate hearing with respondent’s
Appeals Office.5 Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. ___ (2001).
In so holding in Lunsford, we overruled Meyer v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 417 (2000), to the extent that it required the Court to
look behind a notice of determination to ascertain whether a
proper hearing opportunity was given in order to decide whether
such a notice was valid. Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra.
In the instant case, we are not required to look behind the
notice of determination in order to determine the validity of
that notice. Id. Without looking behind the notice of determi-
nation in the instant case, we find on the record before us that
that notice is facially valid. We shall deny petitioner’s
motion.
Respondent’s Motion
In respondent’s motion, respondent asks the Court to dismiss
5Although under Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. ___
(2001), we shall not look behind a notice of determination in
order to ascertain whether the taxpayer was afforded an appropri-
ate hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office, on the record
before us, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Appeals
Office did not hold the hearing to which he was entitled under
sec. 6330(b)(1). On that record, we find that on Feb. 12, 2001,
the Appeals Office held the hearing with petitioner that sec.
6330(b)(1) requires and allowed petitioner to raise at that
hearing relevant issues relating to the proposed levy for each of
his taxable years 1994 and 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011