- 14 -
The only evidence that petitioners presented is testimony
from Mr. Orum that he and Mrs. Orum did not receive the June 23,
2000, notice.3 That testimony is inconsistent with the evidence
on the record. After observing Mr. Orum’s demeanor at trial, the
Court found his testimony, on this point, not credible. Mr. Orum
pointed to petitioners’ address listed on Ms. Vuicich’s Case
Activity Report which incorrectly listed petitioners’ ZIP Code.
We note that: (1) the Case Activity Report was created after the
June 23, 2000, notice was sent to petitioners; and (2)
respondent’s official certified mailing list that reported the
mailing of the June 23, 2000, notice listed the correct ZIP Code.
Therefore, we do not accept Mr. Orum’s testimony on this point
and find that the June 23, 2000, notice was sent to petitioners’
last known address.
B. Does the Court Lack Jurisdiction Over 1998?
Petitioners argue that the December 14, 2001, notice offered
them a section 6330 hearing for 1998 because it was titled a
“Final Notice” and the Commissioner can send only one notice of
intent to levy under section 6330(a)(1). We disagree.
Section 6330(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that the
notice before levy “shall be required only once for the taxable
period to which the unpaid tax specified in paragraph (3)(A)
relates.” Petitioners misinterpret this sentence. We interpret
3 Mrs. Orum did not appear at trial.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011