- 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