- 13 -
any basis to overrule Offiler v. Commissioner, supra, and
Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners also claim that respondent erred in applying the
overpayment to a liability subject to an installment agreement,
thus violating the provisions of section 6159. While petitioners
do not claim that section 6159 provides a jurisdictional basis
for the Court to take any action in that regard, they do claim
that, had they been allowed a section 6330 hearing, and had they
been allowed to offer a collection alternative, they would have
had the opportunity to demonstrate not only their entitlement to
the collection alternative of an installment agreement but that
petitioner husband already had an installment agreement to pay
the unpaid tax against which was applied the overpayment.
Because petitioners have not satisfied the prerequisites to
invoke our jurisdiction under section 6330, we have no authority
to consider petitioners’ claim.4
3(...continued)
(2000), the taxpayer, after receiving a notice of intent to levy
and being advised of her right to a sec. 6330 hearing, but
failing to make a timely request for such hearing, submitted a
Form 9423, to the IRS “accepting” the offer of a sec. 6330
hearing. The request was rejected (the rejection). We observed
that the Commissioner’s Collection Appeals Program “is an
administrative review program not required by statute.” Id. at
494. We found that the rejection “was not, and did not purport
to be, a notice of determination pursuant to section 6330.”
4 Since petitioners do not rely on the exception to the so-
called Anti-Injunction Act, sec. 7421(a), found in sec.
6331(k)(3)(A), we do not rule on its application or consider
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011