- 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