Marty J. Meehan - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Petitioner’s Contentions                                                    
               Petitioner does not dispute the validity of the above-quoted           
          regulation.  Petitioner suggests, however, that the severance pay           
          in issue constituted neither “wages” nor a “fixed right to future           
          payments” within the meaning of the regulation.  Rather,                    
          petitioner contends, the severance pay “should be considered a              
          separate asset, like a bank account, and subject to a separate              
          levy and thus a separate Collection Due Process Hearing.”8                  
          Accordingly, petitioner concludes, this Court should exercise               
          jurisdiction and hold that he is entitled to an Appeals Office              
          hearing on the merits of his challenge to the levy on his                   
          severance pay.9                                                             

               8 Petitioner’s argument seems to be premised on sec.                   
          301.6330-1(a)(4), Example (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., which                
          indicates that a non-fixed, separate asset, like a bank account,            
          is not covered by a continuous levy on a taxpayer’s wages or a              
          levy on the taxpayer’s fixed right to future payments.  For the             
          reasons discussed in this Opinion, we conclude that petitioner’s            
          severance pay is covered by the continuing wage levy.                       
               9 Generally, this Court’s jurisdiction under secs. 6320 and            
          6330 is predicated upon a written notice of determination and a             
          timely filed petition.  See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.              
          159, 164 (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498                 
          (2000).  Respondent issued petitioner no notice of determination            
          for his 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 income tax             
          liabilities.  Petitioner contends that the levy on his severance            
          pay was a separate collection action from the continuing wage               
          levy that applied to his 1988-94 income tax liabilities and that            
          respondent’s written notice of determination with respect to his            
          1996, 1997, and 1999 income tax liabilities, wherein respondent             
          refused to consider the merits of his challenge to the levy on              
          his severance pay, provides an adequate jurisdictional predicate            
          for this Court.  Respondent disagrees.  It is unnecessary for us            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011