- 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 or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011