-7-
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 258-259 (2002); see also sec.
301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-I4 and I5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
If the Court has general jurisdiction over the type of tax
involved, a valid notice of determination and a timely filed
petition are the only requirements for the exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1). Lunsford v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 159, 161 (2001); Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122,
125 (2001). Section 6330 does not authorize judicial review of
an Appeals decision made with respect to an equivalent hearing,
and the absence of a determination by Appeals is grounds for
dismissal of a petition that purports to be based on section
6330. Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 261 (2001); Offiler
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); sec. 301.6330-1(i)(2),
Q&A-I5, Proced. & Admin Regs.
II. The Parties’ Contentions
The parties do not dispute that the Court has general
jurisdiction over the Federal income taxes involved,4 and
respondent concedes that the petition was timely filed.
Respondent contends, however, that the notice of determination
was issued in error and is invalid because petitioners did not
4This Court generally has jurisdiction over income, gift and
estate tax cases for purposes of sec. 6330(d)(1). See secs.
6211(a), 6213(a), 6214(a); Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60,
62 (2001); Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 339 (2000); Van Es
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324, 328 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011