- 4 -
penalty and the income tax liabilities that had been assessed.
The settlement officer ultimately concluded that the proposed
levy should be sustained. Respondent issued a notice of
determination with respect to the civil penalty and a separate
notice of determination for the income tax liabilities.
Petitioner filed a timely petition with the Court. By Order
dated May 4, 2006, we dismissed this case for lack of
jurisdiction to the extent petitioner sought review of the notice
of determination concerning the civil penalty. The Order makes
clear that we have jurisdiction only with respect to the notice
of determination that addresses petitioner’s income tax
liabilities.4
After a hearing in June 2006, we remanded this case to
respondent’s Office of Appeals, and petitioner’s case was
assigned to a different settlement officer. The settlement
officer provided petitioner with several documents, including
4 Our jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s collection
activity requires that we have jurisdiction over the underlying
type of tax involved, Andre v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 68, 70
(2006), and historically we have not had jurisdiction to review
the sec. 6702 penalty, Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324,
328-329 (2000). On Aug. 17, 2006, Congress enacted the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (the Act), Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780.
The Act amends sec. 6330(d)(1) to give the Tax Court jurisdiction
to review the Commissioner’s collection activity regardless of
the underlying type of tax involved. However, the amendment to
sec. 6330(d)(1) is effective only for determinations made after
Oct. 16, 2006. Act sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019. Because the
determination in this case was made before that date, we lack
jurisdiction to review the sec. 6702 penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007