- 4 -
ground that the petition was not timely filed. Thereafter,
respondent’s motion was called for hearing at the Court’s trial
session in Atlanta, Georgia. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and offered argument in support of the motion to
dismiss. Petitioner appeared and argued against the motion.
Discussion
When the Appeals Office issues a notice of determination to
a taxpayer following an administrative hearing regarding a final
notice of intent to levy, section 6330(d)(1) provides that the
taxpayer will have 30 days following the issuance of such notice
to file a petition for review with the Tax Court or, if the Tax
Court does not have jurisdiction over the underlying tax
liability, with a Federal District Court. See Offiler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). We have held that this
Court’s jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends on the
issuance of a valid determination letter and the filing of a
timely petition for review. See Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117
T.C. 122, 125 (2001); Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269
(2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, supra at 498; see also Rule
330(b).
Petitioner has not challenged the validity of the notice of
determination. We observe that the notice was mailed to the same
address as that listed by petitioner on: (1) His Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing, (2) his Postal Money Order used
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011