Ronald W. Nelson, Jr. and Jennifer J. Nelson - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
               C.  Equivalent Hearing                                                 
               In lieu of a hearing under section 6330(b) in respect of the           
          notice of intent to levy, the Appeals Office granted petitioners            
          a so-called equivalent hearing.  We have previously held that the           
          Commissioner’s decision to conduct an equivalent hearing does not           
          result in a waiver by the Commissioner of the time restrictions             
          within which a taxpayer is required to request an Appeals Office            
          hearing under section 6330 in respect of a notice of intent to              
          levy.  Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra at 262; Moorhous v.                   
          Commissioner, supra at 269-270.                                             
               D.  Decision Letter                                                    
               On January 25, 2002, following the equivalent hearing, the             
          Appeals Office issued to petitioners a decision letter stating              
          that the notice of intent to levy was an appropriate collection             
          action by respondent.  In addition, the decision letter                     
          unambiguously states that the equivalent hearing was not intended           
          to serve as an Appeals Office hearing within the meaning of                 
          section 6330.  On the other hand, on January 25, 2002, the                  
          Appeals Office issued to petitioners a notice of determination              
          advising petitioners that they had 30 days to file a petition               
          with the Tax Court contesting the determination in respect of the           
          notice required by section 6320(a).                                         
               As previously discussed, because petitioners failed to file            
          a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing in respect of the            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011