- 9 -
address. Petitioner did not request a hearing within the 30-day
filing period required by section 6320(a)(3).
Under the circumstances, respondent was not obliged to
conduct a collection hearing pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330.
Investment Research Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra;
Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 11. In place of the collection
hearing, the Appeals Office granted petitioner an equivalent
hearing for 1995, 1996, and 1997. Thereafter, the Appeals Office
issued a decision letter to petitioner stating that the proposed
collection actions were sustained. The decision letter does not
constitute a notice of determination under sections 6320(c) and
6330(d)(1), which would provide a basis for petitioner to invoke
the Court’s jurisdiction for 1995, 1996, and 1997. See Moorhous
v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); Kennedy v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 263 (2001).
In discussing whether the decision letter in this case
constitutes a determination, the parties address Craig v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002). We differentiated Craig v.
Commissioner, supra, in Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 11-12, a
case similar to the instant case, by stating:
This case is distinguishable from Craig v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), in which we held
that we had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) when
the Appeals Office issued a decision letter to the
taxpayer. Id. at 259. In Craig, the Commissioner
mailed to the taxpayer a notice of intent to levy on
February 22, 2001. Id. at 254. On March 17, 2001, the
taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011