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                     
          otherwise.8                                                                 





               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:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007