- 8 -
asserts that petitioner’s section 6330 hearing request was not
received timely, and as a result, petitioner was not entitled to
a section 6330 hearing. Respondent contends that because a
section 6330 hearing was not conducted, respondent properly did
not issue a notice of determination, and therefore, the Tax Court
lacks jurisdiction under section 6330(d) to review respondent’s
decision to proceed with the proposed levy.
In his response, petitioner contends that no section 6330(a)
notice was issued or mailed by respondent. More specifically,
petitioner alleges that respondent never mailed the October 23,
2004, final notice to petitioner.8 In support of his argument,
petitioner claims that the United States Postal Service (USPS)
has no record of the certified mail number offered by respondent
in connection with the final notice. Petitioner asserts that he
attempted to verify the certified mail number through the track
and confirm feature on the USPS Web site, but no record of the
number was found. Petitioner also claims that a USPS
representative he contacted by phone stated that the USPS had no
record of the certified mail number. Petitioner concludes that
he was improperly denied a section 6330 hearing because he was
precluded from submitting a timely section 6330 hearing request.
8 Petitioner concedes that the address to which the final
notice was allegedly sent is petitioner’s last known address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007