Herbert and Rosalie Clark - Page 3

          to the levy, Appeals sustained the levy through a notice of                 
               We decide whether the Court has jurisdiction under section             
          6330(d) to review the determination of Appeals sustaining the               
          levy upon petitioners’ State tax refund.  Although neither party            
          has contested our jurisdiction, jurisdiction may not be conferred           
          upon the Court by agreement, see Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.            
          287, 291 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527 (1985), or             
          through an equitable principle such as estoppel, Am. Fire & Cas.            
          Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1951).  Whether the Court has               
          jurisdiction to decide an issue is a matter that this or an                 
          appellate court may decide at any time.  See Raymond v.                     
          Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193 (2002).                                     
               Section 6330 was enacted in 1998 to provide taxpayers with             
          administrative and judicial review of the Commissioner’s                    
          collection actions.  Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and             
          Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3401, 112 Stat. 746; H.           
          Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 265-266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 755, 1019,              
          1020.  Section 6330(a) provides that the Commissioner must notify           
          taxpayers of their right to a hearing as to a levy and sets forth           
          specific rules for the required notice.  Section 6330(b) contains           
          rules relating to the hearing.  Section 6330(c) lists the issues            
          that taxpayers may raise at a section 6330(b) hearing.  Section             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011