- 6 -
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax
liability.
Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), within 30 days of the issuance of
the notice of determination, the taxpayer may appeal that
determination to this Court if we have jurisdiction over the
underlying tax liability. Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324,
328 (2000).
I. Hearing Request
The question arises whether this Court should remand the
case to the Appeals Office to hold the hearing because petitioner
alleges that a hearing was not properly held. In Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183 (2001), the Court declined to remand
the case to the Appeals Office to hold a hearing to consider the
taxpayer’s arguments because we did not “believe that it is
either necessary or productive”. Id. at 189. The same reasoning
is true here. As discussed below, petitioner’s only dispute
involved her underlying tax liability, which is not properly at
issue. We, therefore, consider it neither necessary nor
productive to remand this case to the Appeals Office to hold a
hearing.
Further, the Court agrees with respondent that petitioner
was granted the opportunity for a hearing. The Appeals officer
set a hearing date, rescheduled it, and, when petitioner failed
to appear, offered to reschedule it a second time pursuant to
petitioner’s request. Petitioner did not avail herself of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011