Craig I. Smith and Mary Lou Smith - Page 12
- 12 -
of an installment agreement does not entitle the taxpayer to a
hearing under section 6330. Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 11
(2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005).
The parties agree that petitioners’ first request for a
hearing under section 6330 in response to the first notice of
intent to levy was timely. Petitioners’ timely request did not
result in a section 6330 hearing because shortly after the
request was made the parties entered into an installment
agreement and petitioners therefore withdrew their first request
for a section 6330 hearing. There is no doubt that petitioners’
second request for a section 6330 hearing (made on May 11, 2005)
was not timely, whether we construe it as a response to
respondent’s first notice of intent to levy (made in February
2004) or as a response to respondent’s second notice of intent to
levy (made in December 2004). Petitioners do not claim
8Petitioners, expecting to receive yet another, “final”,
notice before collection by levy, ignored the second notice of
intent to levy. They did so at their peril, because no further
notice was in fact required for the Secretary to proceed with
collection by levy. The Secretary is required to issue a sec.
6330 notice only once for each taxable year, and this was done by
means of the first notice of levy. Petitioners do not claim
otherwise. Even if the Secretary had issued another, “final”
notice of intent to levy, petitioners would not have been
entitled to a sec. 6330 hearing. See Orum v. Commissioner, 123
T.C. 1, 11 (2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); sec.
301.6330-1(b)(2), Q&A-B4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: November 10, 2007