- 8 -
that ground, and respondent will be unable to collect by levy
without repeating the process, assuming the statute of
limitations is still open. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d
1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430, 434-
435 (1980). If the Court dismisses because the petition was
filed late, then respondent can proceed with enforced collection
of the tax.
B. Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action
Section 6330(d) does not specify the means by which the
Commissioner is required to give notice of a determination made
under section 6330. Regulations promulgated under section 6330
provide that “Taxpayers will be sent a dated Notice of
Determination by certified or registered mail.” Sec. 301.6330-
1(e)(3), Q&A-E8, Proced. & Admin. Regs. This Court has held that
respondent’s compliance with the methodology of section 6212(a)
and (b) will suffice. Weber v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 258, 261
(2004). Specifically, this Court has held “that a notice of
determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330 is
sufficient if such notice is sent by certified or registered mail
to a taxpayer at the taxpayer’s last known address.” Id. at 261-
262.
Section 6212 does not require actual receipt by a taxpayer
of the notice of deficiency. If the notice of deficiency is sent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007