Lynne M. Smith, Petitioner, and Stanley J. Smith, Intervenor - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         

                    15.  In Petitioner’s Response [to the Court’s                     
               Order], petitioner states in paragraph 5 that respon-                  
               dent issued a “notice of levy” against an escrow ac-                   
               count on February 7, 2006.  As evidenced by the preced-                
               ing discussion, the CDP notice was issued on this date                 
               while the Notice of Levy was issued on March 28, 2006.                 
                    16.  Petitioner had 30 days from the issuance of                  
               the CDP notice in which to request in writing a collec-                
               tion due process hearing with respondent’s Office of                   
               Appeals.  I.R.C.  6330(a)(2) and (b)(1); Treas. Reg.                 
                301.6330-1(c)(2)(Answer C-1).                                        
                    17.  Respondent has no record of petitioner filing                
               Form 12153 or any other written request with respondent                
               requesting a collection due process hearing within 30                  
               days after the mailing of the CDP notice.  Exhibit D to                
               Petitioner’s Response [to the Court’s Order] indicates                 
               that counsel for petitioner first contacted Revenue                    
               Officer Ebenhoch on March 29, 2006, which date was more                
               than 30 days after the issuance of the CDP notice.                     
               Moreover, counsel for petitioner states in paragraph 9                 
               to Petitioner’s Response [to the Court’s Order] that he                
               contacted respondent’s Appeals Officer Estelle Gottlieb                
               on March 30, 2006.  He states in paragraph 10 that “by                 
               virtue of this latter request of Ms. Gottlieb, Peti-                   
               tioner’s Counsel intended that a hearing be held with                  
               respect to the Notice of Levy.”  Again, this contact                   
               date occurred more than 30 days after the mailing of                   
               the CDP notice.  Thus, even if petitioner is construed                 
               to have informally made a request for a collection due                 
               process hearing pursuant to this contact, said request                 
               was not timely and petitioner was not entitled to a                    
               hearing.                                                               
                                     Discussion                                       
               The amendment to 6015(e)(1) that the Act made applies only             
          “with respect to liability for taxes arising or remaining unpaid            
          on or after”, Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L.               
          109-432, div. C, sec. 408(c), 120 Stat. 2922, 3062, December 20,            
          2006, the date of the enactment of the Act.  Petitioner admits              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007