- 13 -
the revenue officer filed the lien on May 12, 2005. Petitioner’s
transcript of account and certified Form 4340, Certificate of
Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, both show the
notice of lien as filed on May 13, 2005.
Regardless of which of the two aforementioned dates, May 12
or May 13, was the one on which the lien notice was actually
filed, respondent’s mailing of the notice to petitioner on May
19, does not give rise to an abuse of discretion. In cases where
notice to the taxpayer was at issue, we have said that proper
mailing and receipt were irrelevant when a hearing was timely
requested within the prescribed 30-day period that begins to run
on the day after the fifth business day following the filing of
the notice of lien. See Call v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-
289, affd. 99 AFTR 2d 2007-2526, 2007-1 USTC par. 50,492 (9th
Cir. 2007); Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-124. In those
situations, we viewed the error in a notice as harmless and not
resulting in an abuse of discretion that would prevent us from
sustaining the lien. See Call v. Commissioner, supra; Stein v.
Commissioner, supra. The same logic applies to the facts of this
case. Respondent received petitioner’s hearing request on June
13, 2005, which falls well within the 30-day period described in
section 6320 whether the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was filed on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007