- 5 -
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 161 (2001). In deciding
whether we have jurisdiction, we do not generally go behind the
notice. “[I]f Appeals issues a notice of determination that
clearly embodies the Appeals officer’s determination concerning
collection by way of levy and the taxpayer timely files a
petition contesting the determination,” then we have
jurisdiction. Kim v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-96.
We have also held, though, that the Commissioner has no
power to waive or extend section 6320 and section 6330's time
limits for requesting a CDP hearing. Moorhous v. Commissioner,
116 T.C. 263, 270 n.5 (2001); Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
255, 262 (2001). And, if a taxpayer makes a timely request for a
CDP hearing, but the Commissioner sends him something other than
a notice of determination at its conclusion, we don’t just say
“no notice of determination, no jurisdiction”, but we look to see
whether what the IRS sent out should be treated as a notice of
determination. See Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 259
(2002).
The Commissioner’s first argument in favor of his motion is
that the Andres’ request for a CDP hearing was effective only for
the 1996-2000 years because it was premature for the 1990-94
years. Without a timely request, he contends, there can be no
valid notice of determination and so no jurisdiction. The key
language in the Code is section 6330(a)(2), which states that an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011