- 4 -
The Court may retain jurisdiction over the case upon remand to
the Appeals Office.
The Court’s retention of jurisdiction upon remand does not
adversely affect the ability of the taxpayer to receive a fair
section 6330 hearing. The Court may include instructions and
explain the purpose of a remand to the Appeals Office. See,
e.g., Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003); Cooley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-49. Upon remand, the Appeals
Office may further consider the taxpayer’s arguments. See sec.
6330(d)(2); Lunsford II, supra at 189.
Petitioner also argues that the Notice of Determination
should be vacated. We interpret petitioners’ argument that the
Notice should be vacated as a request to invalidate the Notice.
Whether petitioner had:
an appropriate hearing opportunity, or whether the
hearing was conducted properly, or whether the hearing
was fair, or whether it was held by an impartial
Appeals Officer, or whether any of the other
nonjurisdictional provisions of section 6330 were
properly followed, will all be factors that we must
take into consideration under section 6330 in deciding
such cases. But none of these factors should preclude
us from exercising our jurisdiction under section
6330(d), in order to resolve the underlying dispute in
a fair and expeditious manner.
Lunsford I, supra at 164. In this case the Notice of
Determination embodies a determination to proceed with the
collection of the taxes in issue, and the petition was timely.
Accordingly, we shall not invalidate the Notice of Determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011