- 6 -
jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability. This Court’s
jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), therefore, depends
upon a notice of determination, a timely request for review, and
jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability. See Moorhous v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269 (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).
The flush language of section 6330(d)(1) provides that “If a
court determines that the appeal was to an incorrect court, a
person shall have 30 days after the court determination to file
such appeal with the correct court.” (Emphasis added.) In the
case before us, no court has made such a determination. The
District Court, sua sponte, dismissed without prejudice
petitioner’s complaint because of petitioner’s failure to serve
the defendant. This was not a “court [determination] that the
appeal was to an incorrect court”. The consequence is that
petitioner’s appeal to this Court was made far beyond the
expiration of the 30-day period provided for in section
6330(d)(1) and is therefore untimely by a wide margin, since the
petition was not mailed until December 16, 2004. The 30-day
period for timely filing a petition with this Court began on
October 23, 2003, the date of the year 2000 determination letter,
and expired on November 24, 2003. Since the petition was
untimely, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s appeal.
This is true notwithstanding the fact that the petition was
mailed within 30 days from the date of the District Court’s order
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011