- 5 -
that the decision letter should be treated as a notice of
determination with respect to which judicial review of the
underlying tax deficiency might have been available.1
On November 4, 2004, respondent filed a notice of Federal
tax lien (NFTL) relating to the $24,629 tax deficiency against
petitioner for 1996 that respondent had assessed. On November 5,
2004, respondent mailed to petitioner at petitioner’s current
address a section 6320 lien notice relating to the above NFTL, in
which respondent indicated a December 13, 2004, deadline for
receipt from petitioner of a section 6320 Appeals Office hearing
request.
In response to respondent’s November 5, 2004, lien notice,
on December 8, 2004, petitioner mailed to respondent by overnight
mail a request for an Appeals Office hearing. On December 9,
2004, respondent received petitioner’s above request.
From January to October 2005, in connection with
respondent’s November 4, 2004, NFTL, respondent held an Appeals
1Arguably, if respondent’s Nov. 16, 1999, levy notice was
not mailed to petitioner’s last known address, petitioner’s July
8, 2002, request for an Appeals Office hearing should have been
treated as timely, and a regular sec. 6330 Appeals Office hearing
should have been held, not an equivalent hearing. See sec.
301.6330-1(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (explaining when an
equivalent hearing is to be held).
In Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), we treated a
decision letter from an equivalent hearing, which should have
been treated as a regular sec. 6330 hearing, as a notice of
determination for purposes of allowing our review of respondent’s
Appeals Office determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007