- 14 -
and an opportunity for an Appeals hearing is a matter
of administrative practice and procedure and not a
requirement of law. * * * [Edwards v. Commissioner,
supra.]
In addition, to the extent that petitioner might be claiming
that respondent declined to afford the requisite notice and
opportunity for hearing under sections 6330 and 6331 before
enforcing collection by levy, we initially note that our
jurisdiction in this case does not depend on whether the Appeals
Office offered or conducted an appropriate hearing. Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 164-165 (2001). Furthermore, the
record fails to show any impropriety in the collection procedures
followed by respondent.
By letter dated May 26, 1999, petitioner was provided with a
final notice of intent to levy and his right to a hearing. His
Form 12153 was received by the Internal Revenue Service on June
25, 1999. After a period of correspondence between the parties,
a letter dated July 12, 2000, was sent by Appeals Officer Millang
inviting petitioner to participate in a hearing on July 31, 2000.
Numerous letters were exchanged, and the eventual notice of
determination concerning collection action addresses petitioner’s
arguments as reflected in such transmittals. We cannot find that
petitioner was improperly denied any germane “30 day appeal”.
Turning to the remaining issues specifically enumerated in
section 6330(c)(2)(A) and reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard, petitioner has at no time raised a spousal defense,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011