Russell L. and Ruth C. Voorhees - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          circumstances, pursuant to section 6330(d), only petitioner                 
          Russell L. Voorhees may file a petition with the Court.  Since              
          respondent did not issue a notice of determination to petitioner            
          Ruth C. Voorhees, petitioner Ruth C. Voorhees may not invoke this           
          Court’s jurisdiction.                                                       
               We reject petitioners’ contention that respondent’s motion             
          is raised late in the proceedings and is untimely.  The notice of           
          determination is a jurisdictional requirement of the Court, and             
          jurisdictional matters may be raised at any stage of the                    
          proceedings.  In addition, in their response to the motion to               
          dismiss petitioners contend that dismissal against petitioner               
          Ruth C. Voorhees would amount to a dismissal against both                   
          petitioners and that such a result is “not within the purview or            
          the intent of the law”.  This contention is without merit.                  
          Petitioners are not treated as a single person under section                
          6330.  Because Ruth C. Voorhees did not request a hearing, the              
          Appeals Office was not obligated to conduct a hearing with                  
          respect to her liabilities.  Consequently the Appeals Office was            
          not obligated to issue a notice of determination to Ruth C.                 
          Voorhees and did not do so.  Because Ruth C. Voorhees did not               
          receive a notice of determination, she may not join in petitioner           
          Russell L. Voorhees’ challenge to his notice of determination.              
          See Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at 270 (holding that taxpayer           
          husband, who filed jointly with his wife but did not receive a              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011