Yakuba G. Brown - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183 (2001); Offiler v.                   
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).                                     
          Taxable Years 1997, 1998, and 1999                                          
               As indicated, on November 10, 2000, respondent issued                  
          petitioner a notice of intent to levy with respect to the taxable           
          years 1997, 1998, and 1999.1  Since a timely request for an                 
          Appeals Office hearing was not made, respondent offered                     
          petitioner an equivalent hearing.  Sec. 301.6330-1(i)(1), Proced.           
          & Admin. Regs.; see Craig v. Commissioner, supra at 258.  In                
          response to the Appeals Office hearing, respondent issued a                 
          decision letter on August 14, 2003.  The decision letter did not            
          purport to be a determination pursuant to section 6320 or 6330.             
          Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255 (2001).                               
               Consistent with the foregoing, we shall dismiss for lack of            
          jurisdiction so much of the case that seeks review of the taxable           
          years 1997, 1998, and 1999 on the ground that the Appeals Office            
          did not make a determination with respect to those taxable years.           
          In addition we shall strike all references in the petition to the           
          taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.2                                        

               1  Respondent did not attach copy(s) of notice(s) of intent            
          to levy.  In his motion, respondent referred to transcripts of              
          account attached as exhibits.  Respondent references the                    
          transcripts as evidence that the notice(s) of intent to levy were           
          sent to petitioner.  Petitioner does not appear to dispute that             
          notice(s) of intent to levy was properly sent to petitioner’s               
          last known address.                                                         
               2  It would have been better practice for respondent to file           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011