- 7 -
Discussion
Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Because we may proceed only if we have jurisdiction, Raymond
v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193 (2002), we first address
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is based on alleged untimeliness
of petitioner’s request for an Appeals Office hearing relating to
respondent’s November 4, 2004, NFTL.
Generally, our jurisdiction to review respondent’s
collection activity under section 6320 is predicated upon
respondent’s issuance of a notice of determination, a taxpayer’s
timely filed petition, and our jurisdiction over the underlying
type of tax involved. Andre v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 68, 70
(2006); Inv. Research Associates v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 183,
187, 191 (2006); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 161
(2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 497-498 (2000);
sec. 301.6320-1(f)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.2
Respondent argues that petitioner on December 8, 2004, more
than 30 days after respondent’s November 5 lien notice to
petitioner, untimely requested the section 6320 Appeals Office
hearing and that, due to petitioner’s untimely hearing request,
2After Oct. 16, 2006, determinations made under secs. 6320
and 6330 are appealable only to the Tax Court regardless of the
underlying type of tax involved. Pension Protection Act of 2006,
Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007