- 4 -
Discussion
At the hearing on petitioner’s motion, petitioner
claimed that he did not intend to challenge the Court’s
jurisdiction in this case and never requested that the Court
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion
to declare the determination invalid was filed by the Court as a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because a valid
determination is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial
review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)(A). See Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 161 (2001). Consequently, if the
Court granted petitioner’s motion to declare the determination
invalid, the Court would be forced to dismiss the case for lack
of jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioner’s motion was properly
filed as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Where the Appeals Office issues a notice of determination to
the taxpayer following an administrative hearing regarding a lien
action, sections 6320(c) (by way of cross-reference) and
6330(d)(1) provide that the taxpayer will have 30 days following
the issuance of the determination to file a petition for review
with the Tax Court or a Federal District Court, as appropriate.
The taxpayer may appeal the determination to the Tax Court,
rather than a Federal District Court, if the Tax Court generally
has jurisdiction over the type of tax involved in the case. Sec.
6330(d)(1)(A); Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 26 (2002);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011