- 7 -
Cir. 2005); Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122, 125 (2001);
Moorhous v. Commissioner, supra at 269; Offiler v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); see also Rule 330(b).
In this case, the record clearly reflects that respondent
did not issue a notice of determination to petitioner under
section 6330. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction under
section 6330(d) to review respondent’s decision to proceed with
the proposed levy action.7 However, because the basis for
dismissal may affect whether respondent can proceed with
collection and/or may otherwise affect petitioner’s rights, we
must determine the proper ground for dismissal. We must
therefore decide whether respondent’s failure to issue a notice
of determination was proper. See Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra
at 261.
B. Section 6330(a) Notice
As discussed above, before a levy may proceed, section
6330(a) requires the Secretary to notify the taxpayer in writing
of his right to a section 6330 hearing. Respondent argues that
he satisfied the requirements of section 6330(a)(2)(C) because he
sent the final notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to petitioner’s last known address. Respondent
7 If an Appeals officer has held an equivalent hearing and
issued a decision letter (rather than a notice of determination)
in error, because he or she has concluded mistakenly that the
hearing request was untimely, we may exercise jurisdiction after
all. Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007