- 7 -
conference took place on April 15, 1999, the date the second
request was received by Mr. Wilson. In a May 17, 1999, letter
petitioners referred to the telephone conference with an Appeals
Officer and, among other things, requested a person-to-person
hearing. In a September 16, 1999, letter, petitioners
acknowledged that, during a telephone conference Mr. Tilley
initially agreed with an IRS official that a face-to-face hearing
would not be necessary, but upon further reflection, petitioners
later requested a person-to-person hearing in their May 17, 1999,
letter.
On May 26, 1999, respondent issued two notices of
determination, one to petitioners for the taxable years 1991 and
1992, and one to Mr. Tilley for the taxable years 1994 and 1995.
Nothing in the notices of determination leads us to conclude that
the determinations were invalid. We find that the notices of
determination clearly embody the Appeals Officer’s determinations
that collections by way of levy may proceed. Thus, regardless of
whether petitioners were given an appropriate hearing
opportunity, there was a valid determination. 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. Lunsford
v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 164-165 (2001). Consistent with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011