- 11 -
such a hearing within 30 days from the date of respondent’s
February 5, 1999 notice of intent to levy concerning her taxable
years 1994, 1995, and 1996, which notified her of her right to an
Appeals Office hearing. See sec. 6330(a)(3)(B); sec. 301.6330-
1(c)(2), Q&A-C7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Instead of an Appeals Office hearing, respondent held an
equivalent hearing with respect to respondent’s February 5, 1999
notice of intent to levy concerning Ms. Holguin’s taxable years
1994, 1995, and 1996. See sec. 301.6330-1(i)(1), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. Consequently, respondent issued a decision letter
to Ms. Holguin instead of a notice of determination. Id. That
letter was not, and did not purport to be, a determination under
section 6330(d). See, e.g., Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at
270.
We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over Ms.
Holguin.12 See sec. 6330(d)(1); Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra.
We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of juris-
diction as to Ms. Holguin.
12We note that petitioners do not object to the Court’s
granting respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
as to Ms. Holguin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011