- 5 -
nonissuance of any notice of determination, where the Court had
found that the taxpayer had received a “‘determination’ within
the contemplation of section 6330” on the basis of “various
discrepancies” in the transcripts of account). But as suggested
in Boyd v. Commissioner, supra at 303, even if we were to
conclude that the notice of levy was “evidence of a concurrent
section 6330 determination”, we would be required to dismiss this
case for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner did not file his
petition until November 17, 2006, which was more than 30 days
after the October 9, 2006, notice of levy.4
Accordingly, we must grant respondent’s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction.
An order of dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction will
be entered.
4 The notice at issue in Boyd v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 296
(2005), affd. 451 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2006), was a notice of refund
offset, which the taxpayers contended was a levy subject to the
provisions of sec. 6330. This Court concluded that it need not
decide whether a refund offset constituted a levy subject to sec.
6330, because in any event the taxpayers had failed to satisfy
the prerequisites for invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under
sec. 6330. Affirming this Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit went on to decide that an offset is not a
levy, to dispel any concern that “arbitrary administrative
action” had wrongfully deprived the taxpayers of “pre-seizure
procedural protections Congress sought to provide through section
6330.” Boyd v. Commissioner, 451 F.3d at 11.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 10, 2007