Kenneth A. Sapp - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                          
                                      Discussion                                       
               In support of petitioner’s motion, petitioner argues:                   
                    On its face, the * * * [notice of determination]                   
               is invalid:  it fails to comply with a notice’s spe-                    
               cific content requirements as set forth in Treasury                     
               Regulation � 301.6330-1(e)(3)(Q&A-E8)(i); it fails to                   
               comply with a notice’s general content requirements as                  
               set forth in I.R.C. � 6330(c)(3).  By issuing the * * *                 
               [supplemental notice of determination] to Petitioner,                   
               Respondent has affirmed that the * * * [notice of                       
               determination] is invalid.                                              
                    The Court’s jurisdiction under I.R.C. � 6330(d)(1)                 
               depends upon the issuance of a valid Notice of Determi-                 
               nation.  Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182                        
               (2000).  Yet no valid Notice of Determination has been                  
               issued in this case.  Therefore, the Court should                       
               dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.  [Repro-                    
               duced literally.]                                                       
               In petitioner’s memorandum, petitioner elaborates on the                
          foregoing arguments as follows:                                              
                    The * * * [notice of determination] issued in this                 
               case, inter alia, neglects to set forth Appeals’ find-                  
               ings and decisions; does not resolve the issue raised                   
               by Petitioner in his Form 12153, Request for a Collec-                  
               tion Due Process hearing; and fails to state whether                    
               the IRS met the requirements of any applicable law or                   
               administrative procedure.  I.R.C. �6330(c)(3). Treasury                 
               Regulation � 301.6330-1(e)(3)(Q&A-E8)(i).  [Reproduced                  
               literally.]                                                             
               The Court has jurisdiction to review the determination made             
          under section 6330(c)(3) by the Appeals Office of the Internal               
          Revenue Service upon the timely filing of a petition.  Sec.                  
          6330(d)(1)(A).  The Court has held that a “written notice that               
          embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of the               
          taxes in issue” is a determination for purposes of the Court’s               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011