- 11 -
received an “equivalent hearing”. A decision letter, issued
pursuant to an equivalent hearing, is not a notice of
determination sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under
section 6320 or 6330. Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra at 263.
Respondent’s Appeals Office made it clear in the decision letter
that the decision made in an equivalent hearing, as opposed to a
determination resulting from a collection due process hearing, is
not disputable in court. The decision letter states that
petitioner received an equivalent hearing instead of a collection
due process hearing because petitioner failed to timely request a
collection due process hearing. As we stated in Kennedy v.
Commissioner, supra at 263:
Petitioner’s position ignores the unambiguous
statement in the decision letter that the equivalent
hearing was not intended to serve as an Appeals Office
hearing within the meaning of section 6320 or 6330. As
previously discussed, because petitioner failed to file
a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing, the
Appeals Office was not obliged to conduct such a
hearing. In this regard, the decision letter was not,
and did not purport to be, a determination letter
pursuant to section 6320 or 6330. See Offiler v.
Commissioner, supra at 495.
In sum, we hold that respondent did not issue a
determination letter to petitioner sufficient to invoke
the Court’s jurisdiction to review the notice of intent
to levy. Insofar as the petition filed herein purports
to be a petition for review pursuant to section
6330(d), we will dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction on the ground that respondent did not make
a determination pursuant to section 6330 because
petitioner failed to file a timely request for an
Appeals Office hearing pursuant to section 6330(a)(2)
and (3)(B) and (b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011