-11-
in that it was mailed to the last known address of petitioners,
it clearly contains the determination of Appeals that the
requirements of section 6330 have been met and that the levy
action should be sustained, and it informs petitioners that they
may appeal the determination to this Court. There is nothing in
the notice of determination that leads us to conclude that the
notice is invalid. Therefore, regardless of whether Appeals
should have issued a decision letter, a notice containing the
determination of Appeals was issued, and it is this determination
that triggers our jurisdiction under section 6330(d), if, as
here, we have general jurisdiction over the type of tax involved
and a timely petition for review has been filed.
B. Petitioners’ Claim to Section 6330 Relief
Although we reject respondent’s argument that we must
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, it is nevertheless
apparent that petitioners are not entitled to relief under
section 6330. We shall treat respondent’s motion as a motion for
summary judgment5 under Rule 121, and we shall grant respondent’s
5Summary judgment is a procedure designed to expedite
litigation and avoid unnecessary, time-consuming, and expensive
trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681
(1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or
any part of the legal issues presented “if the pleadings, answers
to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other
acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(a) and
(b); see Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011