- 2 -
Held: Sec. 301.6320-1(b)(1) and (2), Proced. &
Admin. Regs., is a reasonable interpretation of sec.
6320, I.R.C., and is valid and controlling in this
case. Held, further, P failed to timely request an
administrative hearing with regard to the Florida lien,
and, therefore, the Office of Appeals was not required
to conduct an administrative hearing under sec. 6320,
I.R.C. Held, further, The decision letter in dispute
does not constitute a notice of determination which
would permit P to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under
secs. 6320 and 6330, I.R.C., and this case shall be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Robert E. McKenzie and Kathleen M. Lach, for petitioner.
Sean Robert Gannon and Kathleen C. Schlenzig, for
respondent.
OPINION
HAINES, Judge: The question presented in this collection
review case is whether the Court has jurisdiction under sections
6320 and 6330 to review the Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent
Hearing (decision letter) upon which the petition for lien or
levy action is based.1 As discussed in detail below, we conclude
that petitioner failed to timely request an administrative
hearing, and, therefore, the decision letter in dispute does not
constitute a notice of determination which would permit
petitioner to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under sections
6320 and 6330. Consequently, we are obliged to dismiss this case
1 Section references are to sections of the Internal
Revenue Code, as amended.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011