- 10 -
Balancing the Need for Efficient Collection with Tax-
payer Concerns
Given that no timely, reasonable alternative to the
proposed levy action has been suggested and that TP has
not presented anything more than frivolous arguments in
the matter, it is my opinion that the proposed collec-
tion action balances the government’s need for effi-
cient collection with the taxpayer’s concern that any
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
It is therefore concluded that the action should be
allowed to continue.
On May 22, 2002, respondent issued to Ms. Holguin a decision
letter concerning equivalent hearing under section 6320 and/or
6330 (decision letter). That letter was not, and did not purport
to be, a determination letter. An attachment to the decision
letter stated in pertinent part:
The taxpayer responded [to respondent’s February
5, 1999 notice of intent to levy concerning Ms.
Holguin’s taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996] by sub-
mitting a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due
Process Hearing, to the Collection officer;
The taxpayer’s appeal was not timely, not being
mailed until 11/2/01-The taxpayer is not entitled to
judicial review;
Discussion
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction as to Ms. Holguin
Our jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends upon
the issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely
filed petition. Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269
(2001).
Ms. Holguin was not entitled to an Appeals Office hearing in
the instant case. That is because she did not timely request
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011