George G. Green - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               be defeated.  We therefore affirm the decision of the                  
               district court dismissing the action as time barred.                   
               [Fernandez v. United States, 704 F.2d 592, 593 (11th                   
               Cir. 1983).]                                                           
          Thus, regardless of whether the administrative proceedings were             
          still ongoing after the 16th day following petitioner's request             
          under section 7429(a)(2), and whether the determination in those            
          proceedings was properly mailed to petitioner's last known                  
          address, petitioner still was required under section 7429(b)(1)             
          to timely request judicial review in this Court.  Petitioner                
          failed to make a timely request.10  See Freistak v. Egger, 551 F.           
          Supp. 238, 242 (M.D. Pa. 1982) (stating that "Nothing in the                
          statute requires that an administrative decision be made before             
          it is incumbent upon one to seek judicial review.").  Further, we           
          do not find that petitioner was overtly prejudiced by the                   
          extended administrative period or by any actions of respondent's            
          Appeals officer.  Indeed, in the July 17, 2003, facsimile, the              


               10 The Notice of Jeopardy Levy and Right of Appeal indicates           
          that respondent previously issued to petitioner a notice of                 
          intent to levy and/or notice of your right to a hearing under               
          sec. 6330.  At that time, the 30-day period for filing a hearing            
          request pursuant to sec. 6330(a)(2) had not expired.                        
          Petitioner's May 20, 2003, request for administrative review was            
          made on a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process                  
          Hearing.  Nevertheless, the record indicates that petitioner's              
          request for a sec. 6330 hearing was withdrawn and the request was           
          treated as a request for administrative review under sec.                   
          7429(a)(2).  Respondent did not issue a notice of determination             
          under sec. 6330, and we do not construe petitioner's motion for             
          review of jeopardy assessment and jeopardy levy as an appeal from           
          a "determination" that might permit us to exercise jurisdiction             
          under sec. 6330(d)(1).  See Dorn v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 356              
          (2002).                                                                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011