- 5 -
Court”. Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at 268-269. The Court’s
jurisdiction under section 6330 depends on the issuance of a
valid determination letter and the filing of a timely petition
for review. Id. at 269. It is well settled that this Court can
proceed in a case only if we have jurisdiction and that any
party, or the Court sua sponte, can question jurisdiction at any
time. Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000).
If a husband and wife file a joint Federal income tax
return, “the tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and
the liability with respect to the tax shall be joint and
several”. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Section 6330, however, “does not
direct the Commissioner to treat a husband and wife who have
filed a joint return as a single person for purposes of that
provision * * * [and] it follows that the Commissioner may elect
to pursue one or both the spouses for the collection of the tax.”
Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at 271.
As we have indicated above, on August 21, 2001, and in
accordance with section 6331, respondent issued to petitioners a
notice of intent to levy. Petitioner Russell L. Voorhees then
completed a timely request for hearing, and, in accordance with
section 6330, he received an Appeals Office hearing. Although
respondent issued the notice of intent to levy to both
petitioners, the Appeals Office only issued a notice of
determination to petitioner Russell L. Voorhees. Under these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011