Felix and Liliana P. Prakasam - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); Kennedy v. Commissioner,            
          116 T.C. 255, 263 (2001).                                                   
               In discussing whether the decision letters in this case                
          constitute 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                    
               mailing the Commissioner a letter accompanied by                       
               unsigned Forms 12153.  Id. at 255.  On May 6, 2001, the                
               Commissioner received signed Forms 12153 but granted                   
               the taxpayer only an equivalent hearing.  Id. at 255-                  
               256.  A decision letter was then issued to the taxpayer                
               following the equivalent hearing.  Id. at 256.  The                    
               Court held that “where Appeals issued the decision                     
               letter to petitioner in response to his timely request                 
               for a Hearing, we conclude that the ‘decision’                         
               reflected in the decision letter issued to petitioner                  
               is a ‘determination’ for purposes of section                           
               6330(d)(1).”  Id. at 259.                                              
          In the instant case, as in Orum v. Commissioner, supra,                     
          petitioners did not timely request a collection hearing in                  
          response to the November 7, 2000, and April 24, 2002, notices.              
          As a result, we do not conclude that the decisions in the                   
          decision letters are determinations for purposes of sections                
          6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).  Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 12.                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011