- 12 - notice of intent to levy, the Appeals Office was not obliged to conduct such a hearing. In this regard, the decision letter issued to petitioners was not, and did not purport to be, a notice of determination pursuant to section 6320 or section 6330. See Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra; Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra; Offiler v. Commissioner, supra at 495. E. Conclusion Consistent with the foregoing, we shall grant respondent’s Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction And To Strike, as supplemented, on the ground that the Appeals Office did not issue a determination letter to petitioners pursuant to section 6330 due to petitioners’ failure to file a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing pursuant to section 6330(a)(3)(B) and (b). In addition, we shall strike all references in the petition to the decision letter. F. Postscript Regarding Section 6673 Because our action granting respondent’s motion will serve to dismiss only a portion of this case, we take this opportunity to advise petitioners of the provisions of section 6673(a)(1). As relevant herein, that section authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous orPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011