- 12 -
We therefore conclude that premature requests for a CDP
hearing are not effective.3
The Andres’ alternative argument is that the defect in their
request doesn’t matter because the notice of determination covers
1990-94 anyway. This rests too heavily on what seems to have
been a typo. We have consistently held that if the IRS did not
make a determination about a specific tax year under section
6330, “the absence of a determination is grounds for dismissal of
a petition regarding such period.” Lister v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-17; see also Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492,
498 (2000).
In this case, the notice of determination’s summary and
recommendation begins by stating “You requested a hearing with
Appeals under the provisions of IRC � 6320 as to the
appropriateness of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien.” It ends with
“[t]he Notice of Federal Tax Lien is sustained.” There is
nowhere a mention of the NIL for tax years 1990-94.
We therefore conclude that the Commissioner had no
obligation to grant the Andres a CDP hearing and issue a
3 There is one small category of premature requests which
the Commissioner himself regards as valid--those made during the
five-day period after a taxpayer is sent a NFTL, but before the
30-day period under section 6320 begins to run. See sec.
301.6320-1(c)(2), Q&A-C3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. He treats these
premature requests, much like premature notices of appeal, as
filed on the first day of the 30-day period. The Andres’ case
does not fall into this category.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011