-8-
timely request a section 6330 hearing, that the hearing that was
offered petitioners was an equivalent hearing and not a section
6330 hearing, and that respondent should have issued a decision
letter instead of a notice of determination. Respondent argues
that
Even if Appeals erroneously issued a notice of
determination to a taxpayer who filed his/her hearing
request late, the mere fact the taxpayer was issued a
notice of determination cannot confer jurisdiction on
the Tax Court * * *, any more than a decision letter
issued to the taxpayer can deprive the Court of
jurisdiction under section 6330(d).
Although petitioners object to respondent’s motion, they do
not specifically contend that the notice of determination is
valid. Instead, petitioners argue that their case should not be
dismissed, and they challenge the existence and amounts of the
income tax liabilities underlying the notice of determination.
III. Analysis
A. Jurisdiction
Respondent relies on Craig v. Commissioner, supra, to
support his argument for dismissal. In Craig, the taxpayer
timely requested a section 6330 hearing, but Appeals mistakenly
conducted an equivalent hearing and subsequently issued a
decision letter. Id. at 253, 256. We held that the “decision”
contained in the decision letter constituted a “determination”
for purposes of section 6330(d) because the taxpayer’s request
for a section 6330 hearing was timely. Id. at 259. In arriving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011