§6330 — Notice and opportunity for hearing before levy

We overrule Kennedy to the extent that it holds that the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing is a fixed deadline that is not amenable to equitable tolling.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

Whether Greene-Thapedi Is Correct Amicus argues that we should overrule Greene-Thapedi ifwe find ourselves unable to distinguish it.

1996), overruled on other grounds Murray v.

The Appeals team manager, however, disagreed with SO Hernandez's conclusions and ultimately overruled her.7 Thus, IRS Appeals ultimately determined that: ( ) The TFRP assessments were valid and (2) failure to issue timely notice and demand did not invalidate the NFTL filing or the proposed levy.

.Today, in practice, settlement officers conduct CDP hearings and make an initial determination that is subsequently approved or .overruled by a team manager,, who makes the final determination on behalf of the office of Appeals .

Respondent invites us to overrule our opinion in Robinette and limit our review to the administrative record .

We overrule this objection.

6Respondent's motion asserted that the office of Appeals "determined that Petitioner's bankruptcy filing did not discharge his tax liabilities for the years at issue because Petitioner's objection,to the IRS's proof of claim was overruled and the IRS's proof of claim was allowed in full by the Bankruptcy Court" and that the Office of Appeals did not abuse its discretion "in determining that Petitioner's bankruptcy did not discharge the unpaid tax liabilities -'17 legitimate concerns that the co

As petitioner did not offer any relevant or credible testimony on direct or cross-examination for the Court to consider, the Court will overrule respondent’s objection, and deny respondent’s oral motion to strike, as moot.

- 18 - WHERRY, J., concurring: The majority opinion does not expressly overrule Magana v.

402, 420 (1971), overruled on unrelated grounds by Califano v.

Petitioners acknowledge that they received no notice of determination, but they ask us to overrule our holdings in Offiler v.

___ (2001) (Lunsford I), which also was released today, the majority undermined the clear language of section 6330 and the will of Congress by overruling the Court’s holding in Meyer that a taxpayer is entitled to a section 6330 hearing prior to there being a determination upon which this Court’s jurisdiction is predicated.

417 (2000), is overruled to the extent it - 2 - requires the Court to look behind the notice of determination to see whether a proper hearing opportunity was given in order to decide whether the notice was valid.

In determining whether the taxpayer had an opportunity to dis- pute her underlying liability, the regulations distinguish between liabil- ities that are subject to deficiency procedures and those that are not. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2.

Section 6330(c)(2)(B), unlike section 6212(b), requires receipt of a deficiency notice to be “sufficient.” See Kuykendall v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 77, 80 (2007); Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-82, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) 1446; see also Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Moreover, the notices of deficiency and USPS Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail (PS Form 3877), attached as an Exhibit to the Declaration, both indicate that the notices of deficiency were mailed to petit

Unlike the rules governing CDP hearings, the rules applicable to equivalent hearings are not established by statute. See Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 258. Equivalent hearings are instead governed by “regulations implementing Congressional intent as gleaned from * * * [the legislative] history” of section 6330.

(CCH) 737, 738-739 ("An offset under section 6402 is distinguishable from, and does not constitute, a levy ac- tion.").

In re Vaughn is distinguishable because it is not apparent that the court held that the IRS violated the law. By contrast, the Eleventh Circuit opinion stated that the IRS had "violated § 6672(b)". Romano-Murphyv. Commissioner, 816 F.3d at 719. An instance in which the IRS's refusal to hear an administrative appeal is not fatal to the IRS's collection efforts occurs when the Office ofAppeals in a section 6330 proceeding wrongfully refuses to consider a question as to the existence or amount ofth

We find Budish to be distinguishable from the present case.

It is respondent's position that in a section 6320 or 6330 matter involving a section 6672 penalty it is not necessary under section 6330(c)(1) that the Appeals officer verify that the IRS complied with section 6751(b)(1). That is because, according to respondent, section 6751(b)(1) does not apply to a section 6672 penalty.

301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A-C1 through C4, Proced. & Admin. Regs. A decision letter constitutes a "determination" sufficient to invoke this Court'sjurisdiction when a taxpayertimely requests a CDP hearing but is errone- ously afforded an equivalent hearing. See Wilson v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 47, 53 (2008) ("[T]he name or the label ofa document does not control whether the document embodies a determination under section 6330."); Craig v.

However, this amendment--applicable to petitions filed after December 18, 2015--does not apply here.

herefore is not entitled to seek an award ofadministrative costs under section 7430.3 Furthermore, in the test cases, we treated non-test-case taxpayers as real parties in interest and applied the net worth requirement to each individually in part because each had independent legal rights at issue, unlike petitioner. 3 In Greenoak Holdings Ltd. v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. 170, 176 (2014), the petitioners similarly urged us to read "'person' [in sec. 6330] broadly so as to include any third party c

6330. Held: This Court hasjurisdiction under I.R.C. sec. 6330 because the bankruptcy stay applicable to P's corporation does not apply to her as an individual.

In his motion, respondent asks the Court to distinguish the instant case from the holding in Smith because the notices ofdetermination in Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 37, were in response to administrative review under section 6330, in a levy case, whereas the notice ofdetermination in this case is in - 5 - [*5] response to administrative review under section 6320, in a lien case.

6863(c)(1) is inapposite because this action was commenced under sec.

- 8 - [*8] Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with levy on a taxpayer's propertyuntil the taxpayerhas been given notice and the opportunity for a section 6330 hearing and, ifdissatisfied,judicial review ofthe administrative determination. In this case, the general requirement ofsection 6330 affording a prior opportunity for a hearing does not apply because respondent made a finding under section 6331(a) that ajeopardy levy was appropriate.

However, the statute does not distinguish between determinations where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue and those where it is not. The same 30-day period to appeal the determination applies across the board. See sec. 6330(d).

Unlike section 6512(b) (which gives us overpaymentjurisdiction in a deficiency case), section 6330--the statute conferring our CDPjurisdiction--has no provisions conferring and delimiting any overpaymentjurisdiction.

We find Judge to be materially distinguishable from the instant case and petitioner's reliance on that case to be misplaced.

Petitioners distinguish Greene-Thapedi on the ground that a portion ofthe liability for the tax year remains unpaid. B. Analysis The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Cöngress. See sec. 7442; Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. at 6. Ourjurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) depends upon the issuance ofa valid notice ofdetermination and the filing ofa timelypetition for review.

However, the statute does not distinguish between determinations where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue and those where it is not. The same 30- day period to appeal the determination applies across the board. See sec. 6330(d).

Besides, unlike petitioner in the case at hand, the taxpayer in Campbell was never given an opportunity for audit reconsideration as a forum to contest the underlying liability. Finally, in Conn the Court did discuss the fact that mailing alone can be insufficient under section 6330(c)(2)(B).

The Cross case is distinguishable from this case .

.) - 15 - because section 6330 requires a de novo standard of review when the underlying liability is properly in issue, the administrativ e record rule is not applicable to such a case .10 5 U.S.C . sec . 554(a)(1) (20.0(6A) dministrative Procedure Act does not apply where "a matter [is] subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo :in a court") .

addition, petitioners received a collection hearing under section 6330 before levy, which strongly . suggests that quick assessments and not jeopardy assessment were-made .' Despite the jeopardy 7In cases where the Secretary has made a finding that the collection of tax is in jeopardy, sec . 6330 does not apply excep t (cont'nued .

Petitioner's circumstances are therefore distinguishable from those of the taxpayers in McClure v .

Landry and Freile are therefore distinguishable and do not apply . Thus, we conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this case under section 6330(d)(1) to decide how the payment made with the offer-in- compromise submitted to the Appeals officer during the collection hearing is to be allocated among tax, penalty, and interest .

The Court o ppeals' opinion in Robinette , a case brought under section 6 30, is distinguishable from the current case brought under sect i n 6015 .6 Whereas section 6015 provides that we "determine" whether the taxpayer is entitled to relief, section 6330(d) provi es for judicial review of the Commissioner's determination by a l owing the taxpayer to "appeal such determination to the Tax Cou t" and vesting the Tax Court with "jurisdiction with respect t o uch matter" .

Unlike section 6330(c)(2) issues, which will be a part of the determination we are reviewing only if the issues were raised by the taxpayer at the Appeals hearing, the section 6330(c)(1) verification is required to be a part of every determination.

That is because Kim is materially distinguishable from the instant case .

6330(c)(2)(B), Weimerskirch is inapplicable .

Unlike the dollar limitation in section 7463(a) that refers to tax dollars in dispute for each year, period, or taxable event, the limitation in section 7463(f)(2) refers to the amount of unpaid tax involved in a section 6330 collection case .

This is a section 6015 case, not a collection (section 6330) case. As the majority states: “The issue for decision is the amount of refund, if any, petitioner is entitled to under section 6015(g).” Majority op. p. 2. Collection is independent from the determination of whether a taxpayer is an “innocent spouse” and the amount of the refund a taxpayer is entitled to upon a finding that he/she is an innocent 3 Sec. 7491(a) is inapplicable to this case as respondent’s examination of the 1982, 1983,

355 (April 1990), which generally distinguish section 7521 “in-person interviews” from “written communication or telephone conversations” between the Service and taxpayers. We conclude, therefore, that the term “in-person interview” in section 7521(a) refers to an interview in which the IRS representative and the taxpayer and/or his representative are face-to-face, that is, they are within each other’s physical presence. D. Application to Section 6330 Telephone Hearings 1.

Conceivably, there could be a collection action review proceeding where (unlike the instant case) the proposed collection action is not moot and where pursuant to sec. 6330(c) (2) (B), the taxpayer is entitled to challenge "the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability".

eturn, but they did not.5 Petitioners received a notice of deficiency for 1999 and had an opportunity to dispute their underlying tax liability for that year.6 It follows that petitioners are barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B) from challenging the existence or amount of their 5 Petitioners’ case is distinguishable from Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004), which held that sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) permits a taxpayer to challenge the existence or amount of the tax liability reported on the o

2 We must distinguish the circumstances we consider from deficiency proceedings where we have authority to consider overpayments. See sec. 6512(b). A proceeding under section 6330 (continued...) - 37 - Norm lly, with respect to an inc me ·tax'liability, the right to sue or a refund requires full payment of the disputed liability.

First, in Magana, we said we were not deciding whether our holding therein applies to claims for relief from joint liability under section 6015 raised in a collection proceeding under section 6330. Id. at 494 n.3. Clearly, then, our holding in Magana does not apply to claims for relief from joint liability not brought under section 6330, e.g., brought as stand alone claims under section 6015(f).

This case is distinguishable from Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), in which we held that we had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) when the Appeals Office issued a decision letter to the taxpayer.

Thus, if a collection action is initiated before January 19, 1999, section 6330 is inapplicable and this Court has no jurisdiction to review the propriety of the collection action.

Here, unlike Washington, a notice of deficiency was issued. However, respondent does not contest that petitioner’s arguments in this case are “challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions” under section 6330(c)(2)(A).8 Therefore, we shall review the determination that petitioner’s unpaid liabilities were not discharged in bankruptcy.

Unlike the correspondence in Katz and Konkel, the correspondence between petitioners and respondent did not specify the manner in which the hearing would be conducted. In addition, respondent’s letter failed to clearly delineate that the exchange of correspondence would constitute the hearing required by section 6330(b)(1).

Further, unlike sec. 6213(a), I.R.C., which is applicable to deficiency actions, sec. 6330, I.R.C., does not provide an expanded filing period when a notice of determination is addressed to a person outside the United States.

We need not decide whetherpetitioner properly raised the issue ofhis underlying liabilities because petitioner has not presented evidence establishing that (1) the initial tax reporting was incorrect and (2) the underlying assessed tax liabilities are incorrect.

We need not decide how the principles ofcontract law interact with the October 29, 2015, letter because the weight ofthe evidence proves that the letter does not apply to the TFRPs for SCPS; it applies only to the TFRPs for SCH.

173, 184 & n.6 (2013), but we need not decide what standard ofreview would apply here because Mr.

173, 184 & n.6 (2013), but we need not decide what standard ofreview would apply here because Mr.

collection actions, we consider whether he: (1) properlyverified that the require- ments ofany applicable law or administrative procedure had been met; (2) con- sidered any relevant issues petitionerraised; and (3) determined whether "any 2(...continued) presented no evidence at the CDP hearing, we need not decide whether she actually received the notices ofdeficiency and would also be precluded from challenging her 2005-06 tax liabilities for that reason.

Respondent does not raise this argument, however, and we therefore need not decide this issue.

We need not decide whether Mrs .

Although the Appeals employee concluded in the notice of determination that petitioner was precluded from challenging the underlying tax liabilities on the basis of the mailing of the Letter 1153 to petitioner and its return to respondent unclaimed, we need not decide whether the circumstances surrounding the Letter 1153 provided sufficient grounds for the Appeals employee ' s conclusion .

Under the circumstances, specifically petitioner's credible testimony and his history of promptly responding to tax-related notices, we are not convinced tha t petitioner received the notice of deficiency .

Because we lack jurisdiction in a section 6330(d) case to determine a taxpayer's entitlement to a refund for a year over which we have jurisdiction, we question whether we are empowered to determine a taxpayer's entitlement to a refund for a year over - 7 - which we have no jurisdiction .5 That question, however, need not be resolved in this proceeding .

We are not convinced by the view of the section 6330 officer that the signatures appear “similar” or the conclusion of a TAS investigation that was not part of the record.

16Though petitioners now also complain about the delay caused by the CDP proceeding before SO Raygosa in which she incorrectly concluded they could not raise the issue of interest abatement and allege additional periods of delay in SO Edwards’s processing of the case on remand, these issues were not properly placed before SO Edwards and therefore do not constitute a determination that we are authorized to review.

In support oftheir contention petitioners cite section 6013(d)(3), which provides that "ifajoint return is made, the tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and the liability with respect to the tax shall bejoint and several." We disagree with petitioners' contention.

Second, we disagree with petitioner that it was an abuse ofdiscretion for SO Voysest not to provide to him a statement that the requirements.ofapplicable law and administrative procedure had been met.

Their request stated that "We disagree with the determination of taxes and additions owed, and the calculations of the amounts, if any ." Before the hearing was scheduled, they submitted an OIC-DATL that covered not just 1999, but all tax years from 1997 through 2003, offering $18,699 to compromise their entire income tax liability for all t

We disagree with respondent’s claim that we lack jurisdiction as to the proposed levy determination.

The most apt reading of the relevant provisions together is that the exhaustion text of Paragraph 2 is confined to that Paragraph and that the normal collection procedures of the requested state apply.4 Under this reading, there is no conflict with the CDP safeguards, including the requirements of a hearing and judicial review.

- 16 - Similarly, the Ninth Circuit found that giving a taxpayerthe right to "appeal" implies that we may be confined to considering only the administrative record, but that the use of"determine" in ajurisdictional grant suggests a de novo review.

That means that the Court's review is not confined to evidence in the administrative record.

2009) ("our review is confined to the record at the time the Commissioner's decision was rendered"), aff'a T.C.

The Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable absent stipulation ofthe parties to the contrary, has - 8 - [*8] held that the Court's review is confined to the record at the time the Commissioner's decision was rendered.

Our jurisdiction to review denials of interest abatement requests made during a section 6330 hearing is confined to cases in which we have section 6330(d) (1) jurisdiction, see Katz v.

However, even where the Tax Court is confined to a review of the record compiled in a section 6330 hearing, a trial is often appropriate to allow the reviewing court "to receive evidence concerning what happened during the agency proceedings ." Id .

We held in Lister, a Memorandum Opinion, that our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) was confined to the years that were the subject of the notice of determination, where the taxpayer had attempted in the 12 Had the Freijes' June 3, 1997, remittance of $2,800 (which was undesignated insofar as the record discloses) not been applied in part against their 1995 liability, we assume respondent would h

8, the narrow holding of the Court was that an Appeals officer may at the hearing rely on Form 4340 to verify that the taxes in question were assessed.

Standard of Review Section 6330 provides that during a CDP hearing a taxpayer may raise relevant issues, e.g., spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the proposed collection action, and possible collection alternatives.

Standard of Review Section 6330 provides that during a CDP hearing taxpayers may raise relevant issues (e.g., spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the proposed collection action, and possible collection alternatives).

Tooke a Final Notice of Intent to Levy that advised him of his right to a hearing pursuant to section 6330.

Epps, seeks review pursuant to section 63301 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) upholding a notice of intent to levy (levy notice).

Since the equity in assets was not addressed, an installment agreement could not be established.” Finally, the Attachment concludes: Internal Revenue Code § 6330 requires the Appeals Officer to consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of the unpaid taxes with the legitimate concern that such action be no more intrusive than necessary.

Background The following background information is drawn from the parties’ pleadings, Motion papers and Exhibits, and the Administrative Record of the CDP hearing conducted pursuant to section 6330.

MEMORANDUM OPINION LANDY, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner, Carol Mahr Besore, seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) upholding a proposed levy to collect unpaid income tax liabilities for taxable years 2009 and 2014 through 2017 (years in issue).

In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner, DCSL, LLC, seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to uphold a Notice of Intent to Levy (levy notice).

Nelson, seeks review pursuant to section 63301 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Office of Appeals) upholding a notice of intent to levy (levy notice) with respect to his 2015–19 tax years.

MEMORANDUM OPINION URDA, Chief Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner, Carol Rae Foulds, seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Office of Appeals) upholding a notice of intent to levy with respect to her unpaid federal income tax liabilities for 2014 and 2016 tax years (levy notice).

MEMORANDUM OPINION PUGH, Judge: After concessions, petitioner seeks review of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals1 (Appeals) pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)2 to uphold a proposed levy to collect a $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty under the provisions of section 6702(a) for a purported federal income tax return filed for the 2017 tax year.

Standard of Review We have jurisdiction to review a determination by Appeals pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner, Stacey Renen Powers, seeks review pursuant to section 6330 of the determination of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) to uphold a 2019 levy on Ms.

MEMORANDUM OPINION URDA, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner, Douglas James Casement, seeks review pursuant to section 63301 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals upholding a notice of intent to levy with respect to unpaid federal income tax liabilities for his 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxable years.2 The Commissioner has moved for summary 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statut

Background The following background information is drawn from the parties’ pleadings, Motion papers and attached Exhibits, and the Administrative Record of the CDP hearing conducted pursuant to section 6330.

MEMORANDUM OPINION URDA, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner, David James Dick, Jr., seeks review pursuant to section 63301 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) upholding a notice of intent to levy (Notice) with respect to unpaid federal income tax liabilities for his 2011–16 and 2018 taxable years.

On June 5, 2023, petitioners, while residing in Florida, filed their Petition alleging that they were denied their CDP rights pursuant to section 6330.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LEYDEN, Special Trial Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)2 Independent Office of Appeals (Office of Appeals)3 to uphold a proposed levy action to collect unpaid federal income tax liabilities for 2017 and 2018.

330(c)(1) dictates that the “appeals officer shall at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met.” We have consistently held this verification is a simple verification and not a substantive review: Caselaw applying section 6330(c)(1) has not imposed a substantive review of the procedural steps that have been verified by the settlement officer or of the settlement officer’s thought process.

This is a collection due process (CDP) case in which petitioner, Georgianna Shepard, seeks review pursuant to section 6330 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.

Pursuant to section 6330(e)(1), the statute of limitations on collection has been suspended since those dates and, accordingly, remains open.

Section 6330 provides that during a CDP hearing a taxpayer may raise relevant issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the proposed collection action, and possible collection alternatives.

This is a collection due process (CDP) case in which petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) Independent Office of Appeals2 (Appeals) upholding a proposed levy collection action for tax periods 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.

Stevenson, seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of the determination of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) to uphold a notice of intent to levy with respect to Mr.

Plotkin, pursuant to section 6330(d)1 for review of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals (Appeals) sustaining a notice of intent to levy to collect unpaid federal income tax liabilities for the tax years 1991–95.

Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to section 6330.

Served 08/28/23 2 [*2] levy action pursuant to section 6330(d).3 In filing his Motion, the Commissioner contends that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in disallowing the proposed collection alternative to the proposed levy action because Ms.

Washington, deceased, Lenda Washington, personal representative (Estate), seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals), dated October 18, 2019, as supplemented on June 17, 2021.

Collection Due Process Section 6330 provides procedures for administrative and judicial review of the Commissioner’s proposed levy actions.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: This is a collection due process (“CDP”) case brought by petitioners, Kevin and Shelly Lipka, pursuant to section 6330(d)1 to review a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Independent Office of Appeals (“IRS Appeals”) denying the Lipkas’ request for a collection alternative and sustaining a notice of intent to levy to collect their unpaid federal income tax liability for the year 2017.

That would prolong the case even further, defying logic and undermining Congress’ intent.5 For all these reasons, we hold that the OIC petitioner submitted in May 2018 was not “deemed accepted” under section 7122(f).

Addis, seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)1 of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals that upheld a notice of intent to levy relating to his 2014 tax year.

Under the same rule, we have analyzed in this Opinion the 90-day deadline for a deficiency petition under section 6213(a), and we hold it to be jurisdictional.

We review respondent’s (the IRS’s) determination pursuant to section 6330(d).1 The parties submitted this case fully stipulated for decision without trial under Rule 122.

Rowen’s right to seek a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals (“IRS Appeals”) (whose determination would have been reviewable by this Court pursuant to section 6330), but Dr.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer if he intends to levy on the taxpayer’s property.

The petition initiating this collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330.

Discussion Section 6330 provides procedures for administrative and judicial review of the Commissioner’s proposed levy actions.

When a taxpayer fails to make a timely request for a hearing under section 6330 and IRS Appeals makes no determination pursuant to section 6330, we have no jurisdiction - 18 - under section 6330(d) “[b]ecause there [i]s no Appeals determination for this Court to review.” Offiler v.

And, once an issue is “raised”, section 6330 requires that the officer who’s conducting the hearing “consider” it.

- 3 - [*3] verification pursuant to section 6330(c)(1) and (3)(A) that the requirements of certain applicable laws had been met.2 On May 1, 2020, a supplemental Appeals conference was held by telephone.

Section 6330 provides for notice and the opportunity for a CDP hearing before levy.

In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), ofthe determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent)2 to uphold a notice ofintent to levy to collect petitioner's 2009, 2010, and 2011 (years in issue) Federal income tax liabilities.

Standard ofReview Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer ifhe intends to levy on that taxpayer's property.

The issues for decision are (1) whether assessments that respondent entered against petitioners for the taxable year 2005 are valid and, ifso, - 4 - (2) whether the Appeals Office erred in determining that petitioners are barred from challenging their underlying tax liability pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B).

Petitioner submitted a timely request for an administrative - 6 - [*6] hearing and asserted that he should not be held liable for the TFRPs. He did not raise any other issue or offer a collection alternative to the lien. The Appeals Office concluded that petitioner had a prior opportunityto challenge his liability for the TFRPs and was barred from reasserting that claim in accordance with section 6330(c)(2)(B).

1, 9 (2010) ("[B]ecause section 6330 requires a de novo standard ofreview when the underlying liability is properly in issue, the administrative record rule is not applicable to such a case." (citing 5 U.S.C.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ ofthe determination by the Internal ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

Section 6330 provides procedures for administrative andjudicial review of the Commissioner's levy actions.

GOEKE, Judge: In these consolidated collection due process (CDP) cases, petitioners seek review pursuant to section 6330, as made applicable by section 6320(c), ofrespondent's determinations set forth in his notices ofdetermination.¹ Respondent initiated the collection actions with respect to unpaid employment taxes (i.e., Federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare withholdings) for ¹Unless otherwise indicated

Because ofthe information in the Forms 4340, and because petitioner has not identified any other particular requirement of applicable law or administrative procedure that has not been met, we hold that the Office ofAppeals did not abuse its discretion in performing the verification mandated by section 6330(c)(1).

Discussion Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer ifhe intends to levy on that taxpayer's property.

("ATL"), seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)¹ ofthe determination by the Office ofAppeals ("Appeals") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to uphold a notice ofintent to levy.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) ofthe determinations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) Appeals Office (Appeals) to sustain ¹ Ms.

- 11 - [*11] OPINION Section 6330 requires the Secretaryto furnish a taxpayer notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial officer or employee ofthe IRS Appeals Office before levying on the person's property.

GOEKE, Judge: In these consolidated collection due process (CDP) cases, petitioners seek review pursuant to section 6330, as made applicable by section 6320(c), ofrespondent's determinations set forth in his notices ofdetermination.¹ Respondent initiated the collection actions with respect to unpaid employment taxes (i.e., Federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare withholdings) for ¹Unless otherwise indicated

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ASHFORD, Judge: Petitioner commenced this collection due process (CDP) case pursuant to section 6330(d)(1)¹ in response to a determination by the ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.

- 5 - [*5] OPINION Section 6330 provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing before the Internal Revenue Service may levy upon the property ofany person.

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLVIN, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner has invoked ourjurisdiction, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ over respondent's ¹Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect at all relevant times.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge: This collection review case, filed pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), is before the Court on respondent's motion for summaryjudgment filed pursuant to Rule 121.¹ On June 26, 2018, the Court filed respondent's ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED Sep 11 2019 - 2 - [*2] motion for summaryjudgment and the

Pursuant to section 6330(a), the Commissioner must provide the person with written notice of and an opportunity for an administrative hearing to review the proposed levy.

MEMORANDUM OPINION LAUBER, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)¹ ofthe determination by the Internal Revenue ¹All statutoryreferences are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

ion(s) 6320 and/or 6330 (notice ofdetermination) that sustained a Final Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing (notice ofintent to levy) with respect to petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for years 2011 and 2012 (years at SERVED Oct 15 2019 - 2 - [*2] issue).¹ Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review ofrespondent's determination to sustain the proposed levy.

Section 6330 requires that a levy notice include the amount ofunpaid tax.

Discussion Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer ifhe intends to levy on that taxpayer's property.

Proposed collection action Petitioners have also petitioned for review ofthe determination by Appeals to proceed with a levy to collect the $40,277 in Federal income tax that petitioners reported as due on their 2011 return." Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofa taxpayerunless the Commissioner first notifies the taxpayer ofthe right to a hearing before Appeals.

Proposed collection action Petitioners have also petitioned for review ofthe determination by Appeals to proceed with a levy to collect the $40,277 in Federal income tax that petitioners reported as due on their 2011 return." Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofa taxpayerunless the Commissioner first notifies the taxpayer ofthe right to a hearing before Appeals.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ petitioner Emery Celli Cuti Brinckerhoff& Abady, P.C.

Likewise, pursuant to section 6330(a), the Commissioner must provide the person with written notice ofand an opportunity for an administrative hearing to review the proposed levy.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge: This collection review case, filed pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), was calendared for trial at the Richmond, Virginia, session ofthe SERVED Dec 18 2018 - 2 - [*2] Court scheduled to commence on October 15, 2018.¹ On August 15, 2018, the Court filed respondent's motion for summaryjudgment and the supporting declaration ofSettlement Officer Stephan R.

OPINION Section 6330 requires the Secretaryto furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial officer or employee ofthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office before levying on the person's property.

We review the determinations pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

Caselaw applying section 6330(c)(1) has not imposed a substantive review ofthe procedural steps that have been verified by the settlement officer or ofthe settlement officer's thought process.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) ofrespondent's determination sustaining a final notice ofintent to levy with respect to a trust fund recovery penalty under SERVED Sep 24 2018 -2- [*2] section 6672(a).¹ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) initiated the collection action with respect to unpaid employmenttaxes of$24,208 for th

OPINION THORNTON, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioners seek review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) ofrespondent's determination to sustain a proposed levy to collect unpaid income tax for 2006, 2008, and 2009.¹ Respondent has moved for summaryjudgment under Rule 121.

We review the determinations pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

To the extent petitioner is attempting to dispute this penalty, this Court lacksjurisdiction to review challenges to this penalty in a deficiency case; only in the context ofthe review ofa notice ofdetermination issued pursuant to section 6330 does the Court havejurisdiction over frivolous return penalty challenges.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d),¹ of respondent's determination to sustain a proposed collection action by levy relating ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) as amended and in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and P

Petitioner invoked the Court'sjurisdiction by timely filing a petition for review ofthe determination pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).3 The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner may amend her originally filed ¹(...continued) amended, in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

In sum, we hold that petitioner was barred from challenging the amount of his underlying tax liability for 2010 as part ofthe administrative review process and the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in determining to proceed with the proposed levy action.

MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ ofthe determination ¹Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

We hold that they are not.

Discussion Section 6330 provides a procedural framework for review ofproposed collection actions during an administrative hearing, as explained more fully in Goza v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ ofthe determination by the Internal ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

We review the determination pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).¹ We will sustain the determination.

Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to a levy notice pursuant to section 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee of Appeals.

- 6 - [*6] Discussion Section 6330 requires the Secretaryto furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial office or employee ofAppeals before levying on the person's property.

- 3 - OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)¹ petitioner seeks review of determinations by respondent (hereinafter IRS or respondent) to sustain collection actions by levy and the filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien (NFTL) relating to petitioner's unpaid Federal employment taxes, i.e., unpaid withholding and Federal Insurance Contribution

Although petitioner had the opportunity to request under section 6320(b) a hearing with respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office) to be held pursuant to section 6330(c) with respect to the notice oftax lien, he did not.

OPINION Section 6330 requires the Secretaryto furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial officer or employee ofthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office (Appeals) before making a levy on the person's property.

Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to a notice oflevy pursuant to section 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee of Appeals.

In the notice ofdetermination, SERVED Feb 04 2016 - 2 - [*2] respondent sustained the NFTLs for tax years 2008-10 and 2011, respectively, and the proposed levy actions for tax years 2009-10 and 2011, respectively.¹ Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),2 petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to sustain the filing ofthe NFTLs and the proposed levy actions.

To the extent practicable, a hearing pursuant to section 6320 may be held in conjunction with a hearing held pursuant to section 6330.

Consequently, we hold that SO Avalos properly verified, pursuant to section 6330(c)(1), that "the requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met".

To the extent practicable, a hearing pursuant to section 6320 may be held in conjunction with a hearing held pursuant to section 6330.

Statutory Framework A taxpayer requesting a hearing in response to a notice oflevy pursuant to section 6330 is entitled to a hearing before an impartial officer or employee of Appeals.

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)¹ petitioner seeks review ofa determination by respondent (hereinafter IRS or respondent) to sustain collection ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

To the extent practicable, a hearing pursuant to section 6320 may be held in conjunction with a hearing held pursuant to section 6330.

Discussion Section 6330 provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a levy proposed by the IRS to collect unpaid taxes may proceed.

Collection Due Process Section 6330 requires that, before levying on a taxpayer's property or right to property, the Service give the taxpayernotice and the right to a fair hearing with an impartial officer ofthe Appeals Office.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ petitioners seek review ofrespondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy oftheir unpaid Federal income tax for 2008, 2009, and 2011.

Consequently, we hold that Settlement Officer McDermott properly verified, pursuant to section 6330(c)(1), that "the requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met." -13- [*13] IV.

Discussion Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial officer or employee ofAppeals before levying on the person's property.

Petitioners' CDP Hearing This Court hasjurisdiction to review a notice ofdetermination issued pursuant to section 6330 where the underlying tax liability consists ofa section 6702 frivolous return penalty.

Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's determination sustaining a proposed levy to collect his self-reported but unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2009.

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's (hereinafter IRS or respondent) determination to sustain collection ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofP

Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to a notice ofintent to levy pursuant to section 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee ofthe Appeals Office.

Petitiloner invoked the Court'sjurisdiction by filing a timely petition for review ofthd determination pursuant to section 6330(d).

Discussion Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial officer or employee ofthe Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office (Appeals) before making a levy on the person's property.

Since petitioners allege that they, notthe estate, are the owners ofthe property, they conclude that section 6330 applies to them and thatthey are a "person" who was entitled to receive notice, a CDP hearing, and to appeal the May 1, 2013, notice ofdetermination sent to the estate.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review of the determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to proceed ¹Unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractices and

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: This is a collection due process ("CDP") appeal pursuant to section 6330(d),¹ in which petitioner Kelvin Trent Tucker asks this Court to review the determination by the Office ofAppeals ("Appeals") ofthe ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (codified in 26 U.S.C., and referredto herein as "the Code") as in effect a

It could bring a refund case attacking the invalid assessment, file for an injunction against the assessment,2 seek an abatement under section 6404(a), or contest the assessment's legality in a collection due process case pursuant to section 6330.

In the light ofpetitioner's claimed inability to present any such evidence and the significant delays that had already occurred in (continued...) - 3 - We hold that he is not..

We hold that he did not abuse his discretion in denying withdrawal ofthe lien but did abuse his discretion in denying collection alternatives.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),¹ petitioner seeks review of the determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to proceed ¹Unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractices and

SERVED NOV - 6 2014 -2- [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION¹ DAWSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d),2 Grace Foundation (Foundation) filed its petition for review ofthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office's determination to proceed by levy to collect a $10,000 delinquency penalty assessed against the Foundation under section 6652(c) for its tax year ending December 31, 2003 (2003 tax

In response to the notice ofdetermination, petitionertimely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d).

In the light ofpetitioner's claimed inability to present any such evidence and the significant delays that had already occurred in (continued...) - 3 - We hold that he is not..

OPINION Section 6330 provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a levy proposed by the IRS to collect unpaid taxes may proceed.

In response to the notice of determination, petitioner timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d).

In the notice, Settlement OfficerPechera verified that notice and demand had been issued and that notice ofpetitioner's right to a CDP review had been timely issued pursuant to section 6330(f).

Discussion Section 6330 provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a levy proposed by the IRS to collect unpaid taxes may proceed.

Section 6330 provides due process protections for taxpayers in tax collection matters.

MEMORANDUM OPINION MORRISON, J_u_dge: This case is an appeal, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), by which the petitioner, Mr.

Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to an NFTL or a notice oflevy pursuantto section 6320 or 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee ofAppeals. Secs. 6320(b)(1), (3), 6330(b)(1), (3). The hearing under section 6320 generally shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e).

Ifthe hearing culminates in an adverse determination, the taxpayermay seekjudicial review ofthe determination in the Tax Court pursuant to section 6330(d).

Discussion Section 6330 provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing, before the IRS may levy upon the property ofany person.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination.

6320(c) (requiring that hearings in response to an NFTL be conducted pursuant to section 6330(c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), (e), and (g)).

Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) ourjurisdiction in this proceeding is with respect to 68Ven ifwe were to assume, contrary to Our findings abOVe, that petitioner properly raised the issue ofhis underlying liabilities in the Appeals hearing, we would still conclude that he has failed in this proceeding to show that the underl

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection by levy ofthe following outstanding assessed trust fund recovery penalties under section 6672:1 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) D dÜÄJ 2 200 - 2 - [*2] Ta

Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), this Court may review a determination to sustain a proposed levy made by the Appeals Office.

We hold that he did not receive the letter.

Pursuant to section 6330, petitioners seek review ofrespondent's determination to proceed with collection oftheir unpaid 2008 income tax of $25,275.2 The issue for decision is whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office abused its discretion in sustaining the IRS' proposed levy action against petitioners and

Pursuant to section 6330(a)(3)(B), petitioner submitted Form 12153 on June 22, 2009.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND.OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 a d/or 6330.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, andall Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of (continued...) SERVED DEC 79 2013 -2- [*2] determination to proceed with coll

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy ofhis unpaid 2005 ' Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Pr

Balancing the need for efficient collection with taxpayer concern that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary IRC § 6330 requires that the appeals employee consider whether any collection action balances the need for the efficient collection oftaxes with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

She also seeks our review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), ofrespondent's determination to sustain a proposed levy action for 2005 and, in connection therewith, alleges that respondent wrongfully seized funds belonging to her children and requests that we order respondent to return the funds.

Petitioners timely submitted to respondent a request for a collection due process hearing pursuant to section 6330.

OPINION Section 6330 provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a levy proposed by the IRS to collect unpaid taxes may proceed.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: This is a collection due process ("CDP") appeal pursuant to section 6330(d),1 in which petitioner Joseph M.

In response to the notice ofdetermination, petitioner timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d).

- 5 - [*5] Discussion The burden ofproofis generally on the taxpayer.2 The submission ofa case under Rule 122 does not alter the taxpayer's burden ofproof.3 Section 6330 provides that the IRS may not levy on any property or right to property ofa person unless the Secretary first notifies the person in writing ofthe right to a hearing before the Appeals Office.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),i petitioner seeks review ofrespondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy ofhis unpaid 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all sections references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Proc

- 3 - [*3] Appeals abused its discretion in determining to proceed with the collection action with respect to the unpaid 2003 income tax liability ofpetitioner Larry David Carothers; (2) whether the Commissioner has shown good cause to lift suspension ofthe levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2); and (3) whether the Court should impose a penalty in an appropriate amount, pursuant to section 6673, on the ground that Mr.

Ifa taxpayer requests a hearing in response to an NFTL or a notice oflevy i pursuant to section 6320 or 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee ofAppeals. Secs. 6320(b)(1), (3), 6330(b)(1), (3). The. hearing under section 6320 generally shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e).

MEMORANDUMFINDING OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judae: Pursuant to section 6330(d) petitioner appeals - respondent's determination and supplemental determination to proceed by levy to ERVED FEB - 9 20t2 - 2 - collect petitioner's unpaid employmenttaxes, including Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes, with respect to Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for

Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a perso notice and opportunity for a hearing before levying on the person's property.

Bell, seek this Court's review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) ofa supplemental determination by the IRS Office ofAppeals to sustain a notice ofintent to levy in order to collect the Bells' unpaid federal income tax for the tax year 2005.

A taxpayer may not raise in a hearing pursuant to section 6330(b) an issue that meets either ofthe requirements ofsection 6702(b)(2)(A)(i) or (ii), i.e., is based on a position which the Secretaryhas identified as frivolous under section 6702(c) or reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration ofFederal tax laws.

Petitioners requested and were granted a hearing pursuant to section 6330.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judae: This is a collection due process ("CDP") appeal pursuant to section 6330(d),1 in which petitioner Lee Roy Sullivan, Jr., asks this Court to review the determination by the Office ofAppeals ("Appeals") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to proceed with a levy to collect his unpaid Federal income tax for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Abuse ofDiscretion Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to givethe taxpayernotice ofa proposed levy and notice ofthe right to a fair hearing before an impartial officer of the IRS Office ofAppeals.

Accordingly, we hold that the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in determining to proceed with collection against petitioner.

However, to the extent that petitioner is seeking review ofthe- - 8 - [*8] decision letter pursuant to section 6330(d), the Court must address whether it hasjurisdiction.

We hold that petitioner is not.

Collection Proceeding Regarding Petitioners' 1995, 1999-2003 and 2005-07 Tax Liabilities Finally, we decide whether: (1) respondent may proceed by levy with the collection ofpetitioners' self-reported self-employmenttaxes, accrued interest, and penalties, for tax years 1995, 1999-2003 and 2005-07 pursuant to section 6330, (2) Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the filing ofthe notice ofFederal tax lien for tax years 2000-2003 and 2005-07, and (3) Settlement Officer DeVincentz abused his

6330(c)(2)(B) - 6 - Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), within 30 days ofthe issuance ofa notice of determination, the taxpayermay appeal the determinationto this Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judae: .This is a collection due process ("CDP") appeal pursuant to section 6330(d),1 in which petitioners Bilal and Monique Salahuddin ask this Court to reviewthe determination by the Office ofAppeals ("Appeals") of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to deny the Salahuddins' request for a collection alternative and to proceed with a levy to collect their unpaid Federal incom

We review the notice pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: This case is an appeal, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),' by which petitioner Stephen S.

Petitioner argues: "[Section] 6330 requires a suspension on collections once * * * [he reqüested a CDP hearing] and the monies credited to Petitioner's 2006 civil penalty account * * * [are] in violation ofsec.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judcre: Pursuant to section 6330 (d) ,1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed by levy with the collection of petitioner's unpaid 1999-2003 Federal income tax liabilities.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner appeals respondent's determination to proceed by levy to collect his unpaid Federal income tax for tax year 2000.

Accordingly, we hold that Appeals did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the NFTL.

OPINION This Court hasjurisdiction over this matterpursuant to section 6330(d)(1).3 3Effective for determinations made after October 16, 2006, this Court has jurisdiction to review an appeal from a determination by an Appeals officer under sec.

We hold they may not; and (2) whether Appeals abused its discretion in rejecting petitioners' offer to compromise an unpaid Federal tax liability of $75,157 for $12,000.

We hold it is not; (2) whether Appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioner's request to reallocate prior payments and deposits from the non- trust-fund portion to the trust fund portion of petitioner's employment tax liabilities.

Postal Service Form 3877, Certified Mailing List, indicates that on February 22, 2001, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of determination pursuant to section 6330.

Pursuant to section 6330 (d) (1) , within 30 days of the issuance of the notice of determination, the taxpayer may appeal that determination to this Court.

Section 6320(c) requires that the administrative hearing be conducted pursuant to section 6330(c), (d) (other than paragraph (2) (B) thereof), and (e).

- 11 - Consequently, we hold that respondent's.Appeals Office properly verified on remand, pursuant to section 6330(c) (1), that "the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met." In reaching these holdings, we have considered all the parties' arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

Barry's case, holding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to review respondent's notice of determination pursuant to section 6330(d) (1).* See Redeker- Barry v.

A trial was held on-May 24, 2010, in Mobile, Alabama. OPINION Section 6320(a) and (b) provides that a taxpayer shall be notified.in writing by the Commissioner of the filing of sa notice of Federal.tax lien.and provided with an opportunity for am administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's proposed levy action.

Pursuant to section 6330( ) (2) (A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner'·s collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriaten ss of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and alternative means.of collection.' Sego v.

SERVED Feb 28 2011 -2- Background Pursuant to section 6330(d) (1), Larry Keith Hodges asks this Court to review the notice of determination issued by the IRS Appeals Office sustaining the filing of a notice of federal tax lien to collect income taxes he owes for 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2003.

Boudreau Complied With All Other Requirements of Section 6330 Pursuant to section 6330(c) (3), Appeals's determination must take into donsideration: (1) The verification that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been mét, (2) issues raised by the taxpayer, and (3) whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of

Pursuant to that opinion, this Court ordered that petitioner's case be remanded to respondent's Office of Appeals for a hearing pursuant to section 6330 at respondent's Appeals Office closest to petitioner's residence.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner timely filed a petition seeking r view of respondent's determination to proceed with the proposed levy.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPIN]ON 4 ; ·| VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330 (d),/ petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of their unpaid 2005 Federal income tax liability.

Pursuant to section 6330 (d)", petitioner Beverly Bang seeks review of the determination of the IRS Officè of Appeals to sustaifi a proposed levy.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of D DEC 1 4 2011 - 2 - determination) for 2002 through 2005 (years at issue).1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination.

.I MEMiORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge This case is an ppeal by petitioner Cynthia Busche, pursuant to section 6330 d) ,1 asking this Court to review the notice of determination is ued by t he Office of Appeals ("Appeals") of the Internal Revenue Serv ce ("IRS") sustaining a proposed levy to collect Ms Busche s unpaid Federal income tax for the year 2008.

That determination was made after the Office of Appeals had conducted a collection due process (CDP) hearing pursuant to section 6330(c) and a supplemental CDP hearing pursuant to a remand by this Court.

That determination was made after the Office of Appeals conducted a collection due process (CDP) hearing pursuant to section 6330 (c) and a supplemental CDP hearing pursuant to a remand of this Court .

In response to that - 2 - notice and pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner timely petitioned this Court for review of respondent's refusal to consider the underlying tax liabilities and denial of petitioner's offer-in-compromise (OIC) in a collection due process (CDP) hearing.

Section 6320 affords taxpayers the right to a fair hearing upon the filing of a notice of lien while section 6330 provides the same right when a notice of levy has been issued.

Petitioner requested- and received a collection due process hearing pursuant to section 6330 (CDP hearing).

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330 (d) (1),1 petitioner sought·review of the Commissioner's determination to proceed with a proposed levy to collect petitioner' s unpaid Federal income tax for 2004, 2005, and 2006 (years at issue) .

Pursuant to section 6330 (d) , petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that respondent's settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and denying an installment agreement.

OPINION Section 6330 provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing before the IRS may levy upon the property of any person.

is afforded the opportunity for judicial review of the I determination in the Tax Court pursuant to section 6330 (d) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N GUSTAFSON, Judge : This case is an appeal by petitioner Robert Anson, pursuant to section 6330(d),' asking this .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to sustain a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to petitioner's unpaid Federa l 'Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended .

Hence, we hold that the settlement officer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting the proposed 10-year installment plan .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks judicial review of respondent's determination to proceed with a proposed levy to.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS'OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a proposed levy.

14 - We hold, for respondent, that none of petitioner's tax liabilities for the years in issue were discharged in the first bankruptcy case.

An equivalent hearing is not a waiver by the Commissioner of the time restrictions for requesting a CDP hearing, and a decision letter is not a determination letter pursuant to section 6330 .

regarding intrusiveness of the filing of the NFTL?` - 12 - Yes, IRC section 6330 requires that the settlement officer consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary .

MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination sustaining a proposed levy with respect to his 2002 Federal income tax liability .

When there is no unpaid liability for a year upon which a collection action could be based, a proceeding filed in this Court pursuant to section 6330 is moot.

Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before levying on the person's property.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek review of respondent's determinations to proceed with the collection of their 1997 and 1998 Federal income tax liabilities and the assessed additions to tax.

Respondent-sent petitioner.a notice of intent to levy pursuant to section 6330 in May 2007.

below in parts II .C, II .D, and II.E .) Additionally, the taxpayer may contest the existence and amount of the underlying tax 10To the extent practicable, a CDP hearing concerningl.a lien under section 6320 is to be held in conjunction with a CDP hearing concerning'a levy under section 6330, and the conduct of the lien hearing is to be in accordance with the relevant, provisions of section 6330 .

In response, petitioners timely` filed a petition, pursuant to section 6330(d) , SERVED JAN 11 2010 - 2 - seeking review of respondent's determination .' We must decide whether respondent's Appeals officer abused her discretion by sustaining the levy collection action against, petitioners' real property for tax years'1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 by not pro

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's 2004 Federal income tax liability.

Section 6330 requires the Appeals conferee to consider information the taxpayer.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330 (d) (1) , petitioner seeks review of respondent's determiliation tò niaintiain a lien with respect to petitioner' s unpaid incom tax or 1½99 .

Pursuant to section 6330(d) (1), petitioner seeks judicial review of respondent's determination to proceed with a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 2006 and 2007.

Discussion Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing-before making a levy on the person's property .

Thus for all of the foregoing reasons, with-no material facts in dispute and viewing the facts in a light most favorable topetitioners, the,parties opposing the summary judgment motion, we hold that the Appeals office's determination to sustain the proposed levy was not an abuse of discretion .

Discussion Section 6330 requires'the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before making a levy on the person's property .

Petitioner did not respond to the notice, the tax was assessed, and, pursuant to section 6330, respondent sent petitioner a notice of intent to levy for that tax year.

.) - 11 - administrative procedure had been met pursuant to section 6330(c)(1) .

This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330 .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks judicial review of respondent's determination to proceed with a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2000 .1 The issues for decision are : 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code .

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and alternative means of collection .

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N WELLS, Judge : Respondent's Appeal, Office determined that a lien and proposed levy should be sustained against petitioner , which, pursuant to section 6330,1 timely filed a petition for 'Unless otherwise indicated, all se tion references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, nd all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice nd Procedure .

- 3 - OPINION DAWSON, Judge : This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 .1 Petitioner timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d) appealing respondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy of petitioner's 2002 income tax liability .

- 3 - MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : The petition in this case is an appeal, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),1 of three Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, which were issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to petitioners Edward and Mary E .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION f GALE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),' petitione r seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a lev y to collect unpaid income tax for petitioner's 1998 taxable ye a 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references .' are the Internal Revenue Code of 1.986, as amended .

- If the person makes a timely request for a hearing under section 6320 ( dealing with liens ) or section 6330 (dealing with levies ), a hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals . Secs . 6320 (a)(3)(B), (b )( 1), and (c) , 6330 (b)(1) . Administrative, hearings under sections 6320 and 6330 must be conducted in accordance with section 6330 ( c) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT .OPINION JACOBS, Judge : This case arises from a petition for judicial review pursuant to section 6330(d) of respondent' s determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2003 .by way'of levy .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),' petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a lev y to collect unpaid income tax with respect to petitioner's 199 5 'Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of P

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2) .(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection .

Administrative review is carried out by way of a hearing before the Office of Appeals under section 6330(b) and (c) ; and if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the outcome there, it can appeal tha t "To the extent practicable, a CDP hearing concerning a lien under section 6320 is to be held in conjunction with a!CDP hearing concerning a levy under section 6330, and the conduct of the lien hearing is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of section 6330 .

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax liability .

SERVED NOV'1 0 2009 notice and pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner timely petitioned this Court for review of respondent's determination that petitioner was notj entitled to a face-to-face collection due process (CDP) hearing .

had no prior involvement with the matter and ordered that petitioner be afforded a face-to-face hearing pursuant to section 6330 .' Additionally, .

successfully challenge the assessed liabilities ; (3) petitioner had failed to propose a viable collection alternative ; and (4) the proposed collection actions balanced the need for efficient tax collection with petitioner's concern that they not be more intrusive than necessary-, -8- Discussion Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of a person unless the Commissioner first notifies the person in writing of the right to a hearing before the Appeals

Huntress, pursuant to section 6330 (d),' asking this Court to .review the notice of determination issued by the Internal Revenu e Service (IRS) sustaining the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien to collect Mr .

We hold that res judicata neither bars RLI from asserting the NOL carryback nor bars the IRS from recapturing the tentative refunds allowed on account of the NOL carryback .

Shanley, pursuant to section 6330(d) I from the determination by an appeals officer of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to uphold a proposed levy to collect Mr .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to sustain a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to petitioner's unpaid Federal 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice

at it was unreasonable for the settlement officer to refuse to grant petitioner a brief extension ., Irrespective of whether or not the Form 433-A was correct', the record establishes that the settlement officer did not male any determination based on the financia information petitioner provided as section 6330 requires .

Under the circumstances , respondent was not obliged to conduct a collection hearing pursuant to section 6330 .

, Leaal Framework Section 6330 requires the Secretary to furnish a person notice and opportunity for a hearing before making a levy on the person's property .

Background Petitioners petitioned this Court to review a notice of determination that respondent issued pursuant to section 6330 with respect to petitioners' income tax liabilities for 1998-200 4 and a decision letter concerning an equivalent hearing that respondent issued with respect to petitioners' income tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997 .

MEMORANDUM OPINIO MARVEL, Judae : Pursuant to section 6330 (d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determinati n to sustain a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to petitio er's unpaid Federal 'Unless otherwise indicated, all sec ion references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule eferences are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Pro

-each of the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and September 30 ; 2002, and March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2003, and not to petitioner's Form 18 - 941 taxes for the quarter ended December 31, 2002., and peti- tioner's Form .945 tax for each of its taxable years 2002 and 2003 .11 We hold that we do not have jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) over petitioner's Form 941 taxes for the quarter ende d December 31, 2002, and petitioner's Form 945 tax for each of .petitioner's tax

MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge: Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d),' of respondent's determination regarding a lien filed with respect .

" A hearing pursuant to section 6330 was conducted on April 23, 2007 .

i MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to, proceed with collection of his unpaid 2002, 2003, and 2004 income tax liabilities .

In response SERVED FEB 0 9 2009 2 - petition'r timely filed a petition pursuant to section 6330(d)' seeking 'review of respondent's determination .

MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner s seek review of respondent's determination sustaining a proposed levy with respect to their 2003 and 2.004 income taxes .

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge : This base arises from a petition for judicial review pursuant to section 6330(d) of respondent' s determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's unpai d -Federal income taxes for 2001 by levy .

Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that respondent did not make a determination pursuant to section 6330 regarding the collection notice for 2003 and 2004 because petitioner failed to file a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing pursuant to section 6330(a)(3)(B) and (b) .z See Orum v .

This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330 .

d he has not asserted any argument or offered any documentation to convince us that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity or receipt of the notices for any of the - 13 - years that would preclude us from granting respondent's motion for summary judgment .10 Accordingly,- we hold that respondent properly determined that petitioner was not entitled to challenge his underlying tax liabilities during the section 6330 hearing, and we will review respondent's determination

Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), within 30 days of the issuance of the notice of determination, the taxpayer may appeal .that determination to this Court .

Section-6330 provides a similar hearing opportunity before a proposed'levy.

" This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330 .

Here we hold similarly that there is no fundamental principle of law that the remedy to a Backup(cid:127)Withholding Notification is necessarily found .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's proposed levy action with respect to his income tax liability for 1983 .

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness IRC § 6330 requires that the Appeals Office consider whether a proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

Section 6330 Levy Section 6330 provides for notice a d opportunity for a hearing before the Commissioner may levy upon the property of any person .

Balancing the Need for Efficie tCollection with the Taxpayer's Concern that th Collection Action be no More Intrusive than Neceosary_ IRC Section 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer consider whether any collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary .

- 9 - This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330 .

MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge : Petitioner,, pursuant to section 6330(d),' seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy of petitioner's unpaid 2001, 2002, and 2003 Federal income tax liabilities .

To the extent practicable, a hearing under section 6320 is to be held in conjunction with a hearing under section 6330, and the conduct of the hearing is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of section 6330 .

SERVED MAY - 5 2008 I 2 - determination) .2 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek our review of respondent's determination upholding the proposed levy to collect petitioners' income tax liability for tax year 1995 .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to sustain the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) for 1999 .

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners were afforded their full right to an Appeals hearing under section 6320(a)(3)(B) and (b)(1), and respondent did not abuse his discretion in proceeding with the collection action .

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with the 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

Since petitioners' petition, which challenges the notices of determination for tax years 2001, 2002, and 2003, was not timely filed pursuant to section 6330(d), we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction .

Pursuant to section 6330, petitioners seek review of respondent's determination .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination .

t should impose a penalty in an appropriate amount, pursuant to section 6673, on the ground that petitioner instituted these proceedings primarily for delay and that petitioner's position is frivolous and/or groundless ; and (3) whether respondent has shown good cause to lift suspension of the levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2) .

MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's unpaid 1993 Federal income ta x 'Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended .

Section 6320(c) requires that the administrative hearing be conducted pursuant to section 6330(c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and (e) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of their unpaid 2001 income tax liability .

Garrity separately requested hearings before respondent’s Appeals Office pursuant to section 6330.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of his unpaid 2001 income tax liability .

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : This case is an appeal by petitioner David Cavazos, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),' from the determination by an appeals officer of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to uphold the IRS's proposed use of a levy to collect Mr .

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action(s), and alternative means of collection .

Upon consideration, we hold that it is admissible for purposes of establishing these facts .

We hold that we do not have jurisdiction over this case .

So we hold that the Appeals officer committed no error of law in concluding that Trout's timely-filing-and-paying requirement was an express condition of his contract with the IRS, and that it required strict compliance to avoid breach-- making the question of whether his breach was material irrelevant .

MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d),' petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioners' unpaid 1999 Federal income ta x liability .

Further, under section 6330(e)(1), when petitioner requested his collection Appeals office hearing pursuant to section 6330 to challenge the proposed levy, the collection period of limitations under section 6502 was suspended for the period during which the hearing and petitioner's appeal therefrom to this Court are pending .

Carothers's unpaid income tax liability for tax year 2003 ; (2) whether respondent has shown good cause to lift suspension of the levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2) ; and 1 Except as otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (26 U .S .C .) and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

- 3 - MARVEL, Judge: Petitioners1 invoked the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330(d)2 to review respondent’s determination that it was appropriate to collect petitioners’ unpaid tax liabilities for 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1987 (sometimes referred to as the years in issue) by serving jeopardy levies.

Pursuant to section 6330 (c) (2) (A) , a taxpayer may raise at the hearing any issue relevant to the proposed collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the intended collection action(s), and alternative means of collection.

The petition was filed pursuant to section 6330(d), which provides for Tax Court review of the Commissioner's administrative determinations to proceed with the collection of tax liabilities via levies on property .

Regs ., we hold that 12 days was insufficient time for petitioners to petition this Court for redetermination of the notice of deficiency .

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B), the petitioners cannot raise during the CDP hearing the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if petitioners 6 received a statutory notice of deficiency for that tax liability .

GALE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a levy to collect petitioner's Federal income tax liability for taxable 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek review of respondent's notice of intent to levy relating to their tax liabilities for 1992, 1993, and 1996 .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination .

A prior opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability includes a prior hearing pursuant to section 6330 concerning the liability where the taxpayer fails to seek judicial review of the Appeal Office's determination arising from that hearing .

In an appeal to this Court pursuant to section 6330(d), a taxpayer may raise in his petition any issues that he - 5 - raised at the Appeals hearing.

OPINION RUWE, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners filed a petition for review of respondent's Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) .1 Petitioners request that this case be conducted under section 7463(f)(2), which provides for what are commonly referred to

Respondent moves for summary judgment, pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B)' and section 301 .6330-1(e)(3), Proced .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination sustaining a proposed levy for the taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999 .

He did not proffer any spousal defenses pursuant to section 6015, challenge the appropriateness of the collection action, or offer any collection alternatives pursuant to section 6330(c)(2) .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination proposing levy action with respect to his income tax liability for 2001 .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's proposed levy action with respect to her income tax liabilities for 1993, 1994, and 1995 .

- 2 - Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of an Appeals Office determination sustaining a levy on petitioner’s State income tax refund.

As petitioner's underlying tax liability was not properly at issue in the section 6330 hearing, we hold that the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly before this Court .

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent’s determinations.1 The remaining issues for decision are: 1.

In Zapara I, we held, among other things, that in this action pursuant to section 6330(d) to review respondent's jeopardy levy of certain stock accounts, petitioners are entitled to a credit for the value of their seized stock as of the date by which the stock should have been sold under section 6335(f); i.e., 60 days after petitioners requested respondent in writing to sell the sto

Consistent with the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is barred by section 6330(c)(4) from attempting to raise her claim for relief under section 6015 in this proceeding.

In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioners are barred, as a matter of law, from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for 2000 in the present collection review proceeding.

Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), within 30 days of the issuance of the notice of determination, the taxpayer may appeal that determination to this Court if we would normally have jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the communication between Advisor Gordon and Settlement Officer O’Shea constituted a prohibited ex parte communication that may have damaged petitioner’s credibility before Settlement Officer O’Shea and Appeals Officer Kaplan.14 Consequently, we hold that Appeals Officer Kaplan abused his discretion and shall remand the instant case to respondent’s Appeals Office for a new section 6330 hearing with an independent Appeals officer who has received no commun

During the Appeals Office case, Ps challenged their underlying tax liabilities for 1993-95, alleging that SERVED MAY t 7 2005 - 3 - THORNTON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek review of an Appeals Office determination sustaining a jeopardy levy.¹ FINDINGS OF FACT The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate herein.

Petitioner timely filed with the Court a petition for lien and levy action pursuant to section 6330(d).4 At trial, respondent introduced into the record paychecks made out to petitioner in 1998.

We hold that the Court has the requisite jurisdiction .

Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion to Permit Levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2).

their 1995 and 1996 overpayments should be available to offset the unpaid liabilities for 1993 and 1997 because the overpayments were applied against an invalid 1991 assessment is a "relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax" within the meaning of section 6330(c)(2), over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

Pursuant to section 6330(d), we are empowered to redetermine the amount of an underlying tax liability whenever that liability is properly at issue and is for the type of tax that we normally consider in a deficiency proceeding.

This case arises from a petition for judicial review filed pursuant to section 6330(d).

Since we hold that petitioner filed a valid election for relief under section 6015(c), the Appeals officer was obligated to consider this spousal defense at the CDP hearing under section 6330(c)(2)(A)(i).

Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of the determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's tax liability of $7,210 for 1993.

- 2 - This is a so-called collection case brought pursuant to section 6330(d).

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of their tax liability of $40,094.22 for 1995.

On September 19, 2002, pursuant to section 6330 petitioner filed a request for a hearing with respect to respondent’s proposed levy actions for 2000 and 2001.

Accordingly, we hold 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.

Generally, section 6330 provides that “the Commissioner cannot proceed with enforced collection by way of levy until the taxpayer has been given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, the taxpayer may seek judicial review of the admi

Where a taxpayer receives notice of a tax liability and has been afforded an opportunity to dispute such tax liability at the administrative level, he may not subsequently raise a judicial challenge to the underlying liability pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).

Upon receiving the notice of determination, petitioner filed a petition with this Court pursuant to section 6330(d).

A July 1, 2003, letter from the IRS Appeals Office advised petitioner that he was entitled to a hearing for the 2000 tax year pursuant to section 6330.

We review such determinations pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).1 Petitioner has assigned error to the determination, and, as we understand that assignment, it is principally that, in making the determination, the Appeals officer failed to consider the accuracy of the assessments, which petitioner claims do not reflect his true income tax liabilities for

Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of her tax liability of $7,808 for 1994.

We hold that petitioners otherwise had an opportunity to dispute their underlying tax liability for 1991 through their representative.

We hold that we do not have jurisdiction to review the jeopardy assessment and jeopardy levy in this case.

We hold that we have jurisdiction.

We hold respondent did not.

Further, insofar as petitioner seeks review of a notice of intent to levy pursuant to section 6330, we will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner failed to make a timely request for an administrative hearing and, therefore, respondent was not obliged to (and did not) issue a determination letter to petitioner.

The notice of - 5 - determination stated that petitioner would not be granted relief pursuant to section 6330 because, among other things, petitioner did not appear at the scheduled section 6330 hearing and did not present any documentation to challenge the assessed tax liabilities.

Nonetheless, because the underlying tax liability relates to Federal income taxes, over which we have jurisdiction, we hold - 5 - that we have jurisdiction in this proceeding.

Respondent asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Dudley Moorhous on the ground that the “decision letter” issued to him does not constitute a determination letter sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330(d).

Thus, despite the fact that petitioner failed to invoke the Court's deficiency jurisdiction by filing a petition for redetermination contesting the notice of deficiency for 1994, 1995, and 1996, we hold that section 6330(d) vests the Court with jurisdiction to review respondent's administrative determination to proceed with a levy to effect the collection of the taxes due from petitioner for those years.

Section 6330 provides for a similar due process hearing where the Commissioner has proposed to levy on the taxpayer's property.

The outstanding balance for the 1994 tax year as presented in the levy notice is reproduced below: Form Tax Unpaid Amount Additional Number Period from Prior Notices Penalty & Interest Amount You Owe 1040 12/31/94 $1,227.91 $498.85 $1,726.76 civ pen 12/31/94 500.00 58.56 558.56 Pursuant to section 6330(b), petitioner requested a hearing - 4 - (Appeals hearing) from the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals (Appeals Office).

MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330 ( d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a levy .

Section 6330 Hearing and Determination On May 17, 2001, petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding his (cid:16)0421986,5 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 tax years (hearing request). In the hearing request, petitioner: Disputed the nominee status of the trusts and corporation; noted that the IRS had plac

On May 7, 2003, Appeals Officer James Chambers sent petitioner a letter requesting that petitioner contact him to schedule a section 6330 hearing (hearing).

Section 6330 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec. 6330(a) and (b). Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s collection activities, including

Stack’s March 20, 2023, letter stated that “the offer that [petitioner] has submitted” was “ETA/financial hardship.” Although the version of Form 656 in effect when petitioner submitted his Form 656 did not clearly distinguish between economic hardship and public policy or equity grounds for ETA—unlike the current version— the administrative record sufficiently reflects that petitioner and his representatives submitted an ETA OIC on economic hardship grounds, 27 We found the case Adolphson v. Co

We held that section 6038 penalties are not assessable (absent judgment) because Congress, unlike for myriad other penalties in the Code, did not explicitly grant the Commissioner assessment authority for those penalties. See Farhy, 160 T.C., slip op. at 7–8. Our Court’s jurisdiction under section 6213(a) is predicated on the issuance and mailing of a notice of deficiency as outlined in section 6212(a). The record here does not contain such a notice of deficiency relating to the section 6038 pen

In determining whether the taxpayer had a prior opportunity to dispute his liability, the regulations distinguish between liabilities that are subject to deficiency procedures and those that are not. Where the assessments against the taxpayer are assessable penalties like pre- AJCA section 6707 penalties, the Commissioner issues no notice of deficiency because the deficiency procedures do not apply. See § 6212(a). Because this proceeding does not involve a statutory notice of deficiency, we focu

"Collection due process hearings under § 6330", the court observed, "were newly-created administrative proceedings in 1998, and the statute provided for a corresponding new form oflimitedjudicial review." Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d at 461. Two other Courts of Appeals have concluded that the record rule applies to CDP cases before this Court. See Keller v. Commissioner, 568 F.3d 710, 718 (9th Cir. 2009), affg in p_art T.C. Memo. 2006-166, and affg in part, rev'g in part decisions in rela

The regulations specifically provide, in the case ofa section 6320 challenge to an NFTL filing: "Ifthe taxpayerpreviously received a CDP Notice under section 6330 with respect to the same tax and tax period and did not request a CDP hearing with respect to that earlier CDP Notice, the taxpayerhad a prior opportunity to dispute the existence or amount ofthe underlying tax liability." Sec.

The section 6702 penalties at issue here are not determined in a statutory notice of 2Section 6330 is the provision as to CDP hearings for notices ofproposed levy, but it also governs CDP hearings as to liens by the operation of section 6320(c), which provides: "For purposes ofthis section, subsections (c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), (e), and (g) ofsection 6330 shall apply." After the petition in this case was filed,

324, 327 (2001): "The fact that section 6330 now provides an opportunityto contest tax liability for taxpayers who did not receive a notice ofdeficiency * * * provides no consolation to peti- tioners who themselves made the choice not to receive such notice." Petitioners contend that the Form 870-AD agreement should not bind them, because ofalleged errors by the IRS and/or the U.

Gardner both participated in the section 6330 hearing on November 27. They declined to discuss collection alternatives but instead focused solely on the underlying $47,000 penalty. Settlement Officer Freitag declined to discuss the uraderlying liability, stating that Mr. Gardner had had a prior opportunityto disp|ute it but he had not done so and therefore was not permitted to raise the issue at the section 6330 hearing. The IRS mailed Mrs. Gardner a notice ofintent to levy on February 27, 2012,

Unlike petitioner's alternative arguments in parts I, II, and III ofthis opinion, this issue is properly before us and was the subject ofthe partial trial. We have held that a taxpayerwho received a Letter 1153, providing him the opportunityto administratively appeal his liabilities for the trust-fund-recovery penalty, and who declines to make such an appeal, had an opportunityto dispute the underlying liability. Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. at 349; Orian v. Commissioner, slip op. at 13; see

Gardner both participated in the section 6330 hearing on November 27. They declined to discuss collection alternatives but instead focused solely on the underlying $47,000 penalty. Settlement Officer Freitag declined to discuss the uraderlying liability, stating that Mr. Gardner had had a prior opportunityto disp|ute it but he had not done so and therefore was not permitted to raise the issue at the section 6330 hearing. The IRS mailed Mrs. Gardner a notice ofintent to levy on February 27, 2012,

Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) specifically provides that the CDP hearing issues may include, among other matters, an offer-in-compromise. In the instant case, unlike the Appeals officer in Gravette, Ms. Smeck initiated her review ofpetitioner's rejected OIC before she was assigned to handle petitioner's CDP hearing. Unlike the OIC appeal taxpayer in Gravette, petitioner's OIC appeal was an administrative proceeding that was separate from the CDP hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that Gravette is in

Respondent also argues that, because the Appeals officer's consideration ofcollection alternatives "may include" an OIC, there was "Congressional recognition that not every collection alternative will be * * * available in every hearing." Petitioner argues that, pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), he had an absolute right to submit an OIC and that, pursuant to section 6330(c)(3)(B), respondent was required to take petitioner's OIC into consideration.7 Petitioner argues that section 7122(a) prohib

- Our jurisdiction under section 6330(d) (1) depends upon the issuance of a-valid notice of determination and a timely petition for review. Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.Cr. 122, 125^ (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498- (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182. When the Appeals Office has issued a decision letter to the taxpayer in response to a timely request for a hearing, the "decision"'regarding the collection action reflected in the decision letter may be a "determination

Raise His- Underlying Tax Liability at His Section 6330 Hearing Petitioner further maintains that respondent abused his discretion by not allowing petitioner to dispute his underlying tax liability for 2000 at the section 6330 hearing. The. underlying tax liability for 2000 that respondent seeks to collect was the subject of a notice of deficiency that petitioner received and was resolved in a matter before this Court. As noted supra p. 6, pursuant to section 6330 (c) (2) (B) , petitioner el is

Unlike taxpayers in other cases where we have found abuse of discretion. on account of the ill health of taxpayers, Mr . Mayer was not bedridden or completely unable to manage his financial affairs in 2003 . See Sullivan v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2009- 4; sec . 301 .7122-1(b)(3)(ii) .and (c)(3)(iv), Proced . & Admin . Regs . Petitioner cites Blosser v . Commissioner, T.C. Memo . 2007- 323, for the proposition that the Commissioner has an affirmative duty to investigate possible special cir

85 (2004), that the Tax Court's scope of review in a .collection due process,(CDP) proceeding under sections 6320 and 6330 shoul d r -9- be limited to the administrative record .4 'However, the CDP provisions of sections 6320 and 6330 are different from the "innocent spouse" provisions of section 6015, and those differences include the following : The CDP petitioner's' agency-level remedies are described a t some length-in section''6330(a), (b), and (c), and section 6330(d)(2) requires the CDP

However, section 6330(d)(1)4 provides this Court with jurisdiction to review an appeal from the Commissioner's determination to proceed with collection activity regardless of the type of underlying tax involved . We have held .that our jurisdiction includes the right to review the Commissioner's levy collection activity regarding the section 6702 frivolous :: return penalty . Callahan v. Commissioner, supra . Thus, we have jurisdiction to review respondent's notice of determination of August 21,

The first motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Court stated that satisfaction of the requirements of section 6330 should be demonstrated at trial rather than in a summary adjudication.

We ourselves have already analyzed a very similar question about section 6330's 30 -day deadline for filing petitions to challenge the Commissioner ' s determinations on how to collect unpaid taxes .

The .agency's CDP action is repeatedly characterized in section 6330 as a "hearing", but there is no agency hearing explicitly provided for the innocent spouse in section 6015 .

In response, on December 9, 2005, petitioner requested a collection due process hearing (section 6330 hearing) .

Section 6330 is analogous to section 6015(f) insofar as both sections consider economic hardship as a factor in determining whether relief is appropriate. In section 6330(d)(2) Congress provided that the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals would retain jurisdiction over collection cases to allow it to consider changes in the taxpayers’ circu

We ourselves have already analyzed a very similar question about section 6330’s 30-day deadline for filing petitions to challenge the Commissioner’s determinations on how to collect unpaid taxes.

Commissioner, supra at 65, section 6330(c)(2)(B) “utilizes the past tense in reference to the opportunity to dispute, indicating that Congress contemplated that the dispute opportunity would have already transpired when the hearing under section 6330 occurred.” It was also noted that the Commissioner’s regulation specifies that a prior conference with Appeals is an opportunity to dispute a liability.

of Federal tax-lien for petitioner'ss outstanding.--tax .liabilities for:, the years in issue Petitioner made a timely request for an administrative hearing (section-6330 hearing) regarding the-lien- On January 19, 2007,-a settlement officer held a section. 6330 hearing with petitioner,. ; Petitioner='argued that: (1) The amount"-of-the 1994 : tax: liability determined by the IRS was incorrect; (2) the assessment dates for tax°years~1 .990 and 1994 were 'incorrect ;- (3),the IRS .miscalculated;

MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judae :T Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330,1 of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's tax liability for the 1993 taxable year .

In a collection review action involving a proposed levy, this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330 depends on the issuance of a notice of determination by respondent's Office of Appeals and the filing by the taxpayer of a timely petition .

MEMORANDUM OPINION COHEN, Judge : This proceeding was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6330 sent to each petitioner with respect to their income tax liabilities for 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986 .

Robinette involved a claim under section 6330, not section 6015(f).

(e .g ., deficiency cases, section 6015(e) spousal relief cases, or section 6330 collection proceedings) .

Robinette involved the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the Commissioner’s determination to proceed with collection of taxes.

On March 17, 2001, the taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing by - 10 - mailing the Commissioner a letter accompanied by unsigned Forms 12153.

ce of deficiency for 1999 which was mailed to two addresses, neither of which was P’s residence at the time. P did not file an income tax return for 1999. In response to the Appeals officer in the communications after his request for a hearing under sec. 6330, I.R.C., P provided support for his claimed bases in securities, the proceeds of the sale of which create the 1999 liability. The Appeals officer declined to consider P’s information until he filed a return for 1999. Since P did not file a

On March 17, 2001, the taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing by mailing the Commissioner a letter accompanied by unsigned Forms 12153.

equired by Sections 6330 and 6331 * * * Respondent’s notice of jeopardy levy and right to appeal informed petitioner that he was entitled to request (1) an administrative review under section 7429 and (2) a collection due process hearing pursuant to section 6330. Two days later, respondent sent a letter to petitioner informing him that respondent had made a jeopardy assessment pursuant to section 6861 regarding petitioner’s tax years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The letter notified petitioner tha

On March 17, 2001, the taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing by mailing the Commissioner a letter accompanied by unsigned Forms 12153.

ISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 10774-03L. Filed March 7, 2005. P filed a bankruptcy petition. R subsequently issued to P a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to Hearing (final notice of intent to levy) under sec. 6330, I.R.C. After P’s bankruptcy case was closed, R issued to P a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s). P filed with the Court a Petition for Lien or Levy Action. R filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and a supplement theret

l of competent jurisdiction.” We think that, when the procedure described provides the taxpayer the opportunity to object to the IRS’s proof of claim for an unpaid Federal tax liability, the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to - 14 - dispute the liability, as contemplated by Congress in section 6330(c)(2)(B). In the bankruptcy case, petitioners did in fact file an objection to the IRS’s proof of claim, as well as a motion to determine the secured status of the IRS’s claim. They were accorded

On October 30, 2003, petitioner timely requested a section 6330 hearing with respect to the notice of levy.

9 Petitioners' assertion that Congress used the broadest possible language to describe this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330(d) (1) is contradicted by the language of the section itself. Section 6330(d) (1) (B) provides that when the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability, the District Courts will instead have jurisdiction. See also sec. 301.6330-1(f)(1), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Therefore, section 6330(d) (1) does not expand this Court's (cid:16)042j

I .e-- 9 - Petitioners' assertion that Congress used the broadest possible language to describe this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) is contradicted by the language of the section itself. Section 6330(d)(1) (B) provides that when the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability, the District Courts will instead have jurisdiction. See also sec. 301.6330-1(f) (1), Q&A-F3, Proced, & Admin. Regs. Therefore, section 6330(d)(1) does not expand this Court's uris

espondence informing you of the conditions under which you would be given an in person hearing, otherwise we would continue with correspondence or by telephone. You did not respond to this letter. Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness IRC Sec. 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer con- sider whether any collection action balance the need for efficient tax collection with the legitimate con- cern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. The levy action is approp

Process Hearing (hereinafter section 6330 hearing), dated August .

Drake involved judicial -review of a:determination under section 6330 by the IRS to proceed with a levy.

hearing in which P raised the issue of compliance with the terms of the offer-in-compromise, R issued a notice of determination in which R determined to proceed with collection of the unpaid tax liabilities. ED JUL 2 0 2004 - 2 - Held: Pursuant to sec. 6330 (c) , I. R. C. , abuse of discretion is the applicable standard of review. Held, further, When reviewing R's detecmination for an abuse of discretion under s.ec. 6330, I. R. C. , we may consider evidence presented at trial wh ch was not incl

15(f). We disagree that Magana applies here, for several reasons. First, in Magana, we said we were not deciding whether our holding therein applies to claims for relief from joint liability under section 6015 raised in a collection proceeding under section 6330. Id. at 494 n.3. Clearly, then, our holding in Magana does not apply to claims for relief from joint liability not brought under section 6330, e.g., brought as stand-alone claims under section 6015(f). Second, we did not say in Magana th

If Congress had intended for the hearing before Appeals under section 6330(b) (and section 6320(b)) to constitute an “in-person interview” under section 7521, it would have used that phrase in section - 50 - 6330(b) (and section 6320(b)), or at least referred to section 7521. It did neither.5 5At a minimum, if Congress had intended for the Appeals hearing under sec. 6330(b) (and sec. 6320(b)) to constitute an “in-person interview” for purposes of sec. 7521, Congress would have so stated in the

Perhaps a more instructive way to describe the process involved when we review a section 6330 determination would be to - 22 - distinguish between situations in which the taxpayer must rely on the record made before the Appeals officer and situations in which he is entitled to make a new record. In reviewing adminis- trative determinations, a court ordinarily is limited to consid- eration of the decision of the agency involved and of the evi- dence on which it was based. United States v. Bianch

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative dete

Respondent contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction under section 6330 to determine the value of petitioner’s asset at the time the bankruptcy proceeding was commenced.

Respondent determined that petitioner’s wages should be levied in a notice of determination concerning collection actions under section 6330 sent on July 8, 1999.

Petitioner seeks review of respondent’s denial of relief under - 2 - section 6330.1 At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the Appeals hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses to collection, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection activities, and possible alternative means of collection. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 180. If a taxpayer has been issued a notice of deficiency or had the opportunity to li

id:16)042issue a "proper" supplemental notice of determination. On September 2, 2003, we granted respondent's motion to withdraw his motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to Appeals for the purpose of affording petitioner a hearing under section 6330. Petitioner's case was assigned to a new Appeals employee, K.C. Waters (Settlement Officer Waters), who contacted petitioner by letter on several occasions in an effort to schedule a conference. In two of the letters, Settlement Officer

At the section 6330 hearing (hearing), on April 28, 1999, the estate presented evidence that it had sought to obtain a loan to pay the tax. Between May 5, 1999, and June 15, 2000, the Appeals officer and the estate's attorneys had several telephone conferences to discuss the estate's continued efforts to secure a loan and various other issues raised at th

Pursuant to section 6330, respondent determined that the proposed collection action, relating to petitioner’s 1991 and 1995 taxable years, was appropriate.

On August 20, 2001, petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, requesting a hearing under section 6330 (the hearing).

Introduction Section 6330 accords taxpayers the right to notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the Commissioner can proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on property or rights to property.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Secretary cannot proceed with collection by levy on any property of any person until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. Davis

The final notice informed petitioners of (1) respondent’s intent to levy upon their property pursuant to section 6331 and (2) petitioners’ right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals).

The final levy notice pertained to the subject years and informed petitioner of (1) respondent’s intention to levy under section 6331 and (2) petitioner’s right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals).

Section 6330(a) requires the Commissioner to send a written notice to the taxpayer ofthe amount ofthe unpaid tax and ofthe taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the first levy is made.

at 1501, the Supreme Court held that the deadline to petition the Tax Court for review of a collection due process case in section 6330 was subject to equitable tolling.

That court has held that, where de novo review is not applicable, the scope of review in a CDP case is confined to the administrative record. See Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455, 459–62 (8th Cir. 2006), rev’g 123 T.C. 85 (2004). To the extent that our consideration is limited to the administrative record, as discussed below, “summary judgment serves as a mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency action is supported by the administrative record and is not arbitrary, c

7 Excluded from the definition of “seriously delinquent tax debt” are (1) debts that are being timely paid under an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise and (2) debts for which collection is suspended because the taxpayer requested a CDP hearing under section 6330 or innocent spouse relief under section 6015.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have held that section 6330 does not give the Court jurisdiction to determine an overpayment or order a refund or credit of taxes paid.

hs old; and ! nowhere in the file is there any mention of any request by SO Rush for more information from the Masons to help her evaluate their offer on the merits. Months passed. On March 3, 2016, the Masons received notices of determination under section 6330. The notices made clear that during the hearing the Masons’ “only concern was to have [their] offer which was returned by Collection investigated as a collection alternative.” The notices went on to conclude that the Centralized Unit did

Generally, "the settlement officer's review - 10 - [*10] ofthe administrative steps taken before assessment ofthe underlying liabilities has been accepted as adequate to the requirements ofsection 6330 if there is supporting documentation in the administrative record." Blackburn v.

These matters turn on whether the settlement officer assigned SERVED Sep 30 2019 - 2 - [*2] to petitioner's hearing under section 6330¹ abused his discretion by sustaining the proposed levy.

Regs., a "taxpayermay not raise an issue that was raised and considered at a previous CDP hearing under section 6330 or in any other previous administrative orjudicial proceeding ifthe taxpayerparticipated meaningfully in such hearing or proceeding." He]4: A meeting with a collections officer is not a prior administrative proceeding under I.R.C.

The FNIL indicated that the Government might seize petitioner's property to satisfy his unpaid Federal tax liability but that he could appeal the proposed seizure ofhis assets by requesting a collection due process (CDP) hearing under section 6330 by March 18, 2015.

Numerous cases, however, establish that no particular form ofverification ofan assessment is required, that no particular document needs to be provided to a taxpayer at an administrative hearing conducted under section 6330, and that a Form 4340, Certificate ofAssessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, and other transcripts ofaccount satisfy the verification requirements ofsection 6330(c)(1).

e proposed levy. Appeals concluded that petitioners were not entitled to a sec. 6320 hearing as to the lien because petitioners failed to timely request such a hearing. Appeals also concluded that petitioners failed to timely request a hearing under sec. 6330 as to the proposed levy. Respondent now asserts, and we agree, that petitioners' request for a sec. 6320 hearing was timely as to the lien. We note that the lien notice was mailed on August 16, 2005, and petitioners' attorney requested a he

This Court hasjurisdiction, and petitioner may contest frivolous return penalties in a section 6330 collection action before this Court.

A taxpayermay, in a section 6330 hearing, raise a collection alternative, and collection alternatives inclüde offers-in-comprómise.

14, 32-36 (2005), the Court held that a taxpayer's opportunity in a section 6330 proceeding to dispute the underlyingtax liability does not cure an assessment made in derogation ofhis rightto a deficiency proceeding.

fficer. See secs. 6320(a) and (b) (relating to liens), 6330(a) and (b) (relating to levies). Where a hearing is requested, whether in response to an NFTL filing or a proposed levy, the presiding Appeals officer must satisfythe standards set forth in section 6330. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c). Specifically, as part ofthe CDP hearing, the Appeals officer must take into consideration: (1) verification that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure have been met; (2) relevant issu

e of deficiency. It could bring a refund case attacking the invalid assessment, file for an injunction against the assessment, seek an abatement under section 6404(a), or contest the assessment’s legality in a collection due process case pursuant to section 6330. V. We should not delve into the administrative record to determine whether the IRS made a determination. Congress has provided an avenue for employers to reimburse their employees for work-related expenses. A taxpayer must simply follow

142,083 Because petitioner did not upon notice and demand pay the assessed amounts, respondent took steps to collect, issuing to petitioner in 2008,a notice informing him ofrespondent's intent to levy and ofpetitioner's right to request a section 6330 collection due process (CDP) hearing before Appeals (levy notice)..

- 6 - [*6] OPINION Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofa person unless the Commissioner first notifies such person in writing ofthe right to a hearing before Appeals.

Section 6330(d)(1) gives the Tax Courtjurisdiction "to review the determination made by the Appeals Office in connection with the section 6330 hearing." Moser v.

- 6 - [*6] OPINION Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofa person unless the Commissioner first notifies such person in writing ofthe right to a hearing before Appeals.

to hold a CDP hearing with petitioner and her representative, but neither petitionernor her representative was available for the hearing. The notice ofdetermination also confirms that SO Stewart complied with her other obligations to petitionerunder section 6330. The notice ofdetermination confirms that SO Stewart verified that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure had been met. SO Stewart was unable to consider issues that petitioner raised at the CDP hearing because pe

- 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION SWIFT, Judge: In this collection case under section 6330' petitioner challenges respondent's notice ofintent to levy relating to outstanding Federal income and self-employmenttaxes, penalties, and interest petitioner owes for years 1999 through 2002.

of jurisdiction on June 17, 2010. The deficiency was assessed after the time for filing a petition in this Court had passed. On February 22, 2010, the IRS sent to petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice ofhis right to a hearing under section 6330. Petitioner requested a hearing, stating as his reason that he was "not liable for the taxes - 4 - indicated, due to legal reasons." After a hearing in which the settlement officer determined that petitioner could not challenge the liabi

As the validity ofpetitioner's underlying tax liabilities was not properly at issue in the section 6330hearing, we holdthat the validity ofthe underlying tax liabilities is not properlybefore this Court.

raised during the section 6330 hearing .

Section 6330 Proceedings In December 2007, the IRS sent each petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with respect to the outstanding 1997 and 1998 income tax liabilities. In response, each petitioner submitted a timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. Petitioners' collection

We also determined that under section 6330 the position we review is-the position taken by respondent's Appeals Office-in the last supplemental notice of determination, not each notice .separately as petitioners contended .

the notice of a right-to a hearing required by section 6330 .(a)(1) .

This collection case under section 6330 is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed .

which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken so much of the petition as pertained to the decision letter because respondent did not make a determination under section 6330 in that he failed to send the written notice required under section 6330(a) to petitioner at her last known address .

the filing a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity fc an administrative hearing . If timely requested, the Offic of Appeals conducts an administrative hearing under section 63 in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is e titled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid t including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such is an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreement

On the basis of the record, we conclude that respondent satisfied the requirements of section 6330 (c) and did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the notice of Federal tax lien for tax years 2001 through 2003 .

Respondent, relying on section 6330 (c) (2) (B) , 1 moved for summary judgment on the ground that petitioner is precluded from contesting the merits of the underlying tax liability because she received a notice of deficiency and failed to contest respondent's determination .

may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such party's pleading," but must set forth specific facts, by affidavits or otherwise, "showing that there is a genuine issue for trial . " This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to section 6330 . Section 6330(a) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of any person unless the Secretary has notified such person in writing of the right to a hearing before the levy is made . Section 6330(b)(1) and (3

MEMORANDUM OPINION SWIFT, Judge : Under section 6330, petitioners challenge respondent's notice of determination sustaining respondent's levy notice .

On June 26, 2006, the settlement officer assigned to petitioner's case sent petitioner a letter acknowledging petitioner's request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduling a telephone conference for August 1, 2006, "to discuss with me the reasons you disagree with the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives to the collection action ." The officer's letter also stated that if the time was not convenient or petitioner preferred a face-to-face conference, petitioner should co

Salazar's employment tax liabilities on the grounds that respondent had never issued a notice of etermination concerning a collection action under section 6330 w th respect to the employment tax liabilities .

Section 6331(d) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayer written notice of the Secretary's intent to - 7 - levy, and section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayer written notice of his right to a hearing (a section 6330 hearing) at least 30 days before any levy is begun .

On August 10, 2007, the Court entered an order of dismissal and decision granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that because petitioner received no section 6320 hearing and respondent did not make a determination pursuant to section 6330, .the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Federal tax liens in this case .

The Section 6330 Hearing Respondent issued a Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, on November 8, 2000. In the final notice, respondent stated that petitioner owed -4- $270,087.60 for 1989, $108,044.26 for 1990, and $5,507.84 for 1999. On December 1, 2000, petitioner sent to respondent a Form 12153, Request for

Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because a notice of determination under section 6330 was not issued to -4- petitioner ; dismissal on this ground would allow respondent to levy upon petitioner's property to satisfy his outstanding Federal tax liabilities .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge: Petitioner invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330 to review respondent’s determination to proceed with a proposed levy to collect her unpaid income tax - 2 - liability for 1998.1 As explained in detail below, we shall sustain respondent’s determination.

Ex Parte Communication Section 6330 sets out the process for administrative review of decisions by the IRS to levy taxpayers' property.

" On June 29, 2006, petitioner had a face-to-face section 6330 hearing with Settlement Officer James Feist .

Barrera on July 24, 2000, was a collection due process notice issued under section 6330, and it thus constituted a “collection activity” for taxable year 1998.

OPINION Section 633 0 Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way of a levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and, if dissatisfied, the person may obtain judicial review of the administrative determination .

Where an underlying tax liability is not at issue in a case invoking our jurisdiction under section 6330 (d), we review a determination of Appeals for abuse of discretion .

- 5 - Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of a person unless the Secretary first notifies him or her in writing of the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office . The Appeals officer must verify at the hearing that the applicable laws and administrativ e procedures have been followed . Sec . 6330(c)(1) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 (notice of determination) for 1981 through 1986, 1988, and 1992.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) - 2 - petitioner seeks review of respondent’s determination.

d in writing by the Secretary of,the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing . An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreem

Neubauer advising him that she wanted a face-to-face section 6330 hearing in San Diego, California .

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION You, Mohamed Gazi, ("the taxpayer") requested a hearing before Appeals under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") Section 6330 for the tax periods listed above .

Petitioner also argued that, because he had not had a previous opportunity to dispute the imposition of section 6621(c) interest, it was a proper subject for review in the section 6330 hearing.

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and alternative means of collection .

Petitioner timely requested a hearing under section 6330 regarding the proposed levy .

MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330, petitioner seeks review of a proposed levy .' Respondent has moved for summary 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 (notice of determination) for 1982 through 1986.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) - 2 - review of respondent’s determination.

On August 8, 2005, petitioner sent respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing request) .

Matters considered pursuant to IRC § 6330 Verification of Legal and Procedural Requirements The legal requirements prior to taking general enforce- ment action are issuance of notice and demand for tax, notice of intent to levy and notice of the taxpayer's right to a hearing .

Cochran scheduled petitioners’ section 6330 hearing for March 23, 2004.

Section 6330 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period . Sec . 6330(a) and (b) . Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, includi

Similarly, section 6330 provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing before the IRS may levy upon the property of any person .

An administrative hearing will be conducted by an employee or officer of Appeals who, before the first hearing under section 6320 or section 6330, had no involvement with respect to the tax for the tax period to be covered by the hearing, unless the taxpayer waives this requirement .

- 6 - of a statutory notice for purposes of section 6330 (c)(2)(B) means receipt in time to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency asserted in the notice of deficiency .

"[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because [where as here, the Appeals officer was open to receive the evidence at or before the hearing and was not ignoring proffered evidence] it is not relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330, petitioner seeks review of a proposed levy.1 The only issue is whether respondent’s settlement officer abused his discretion in 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

On October 29, 2004, Settlement Officer Wendy Clinger sent petitioner a letter advising him he would not receive a face-to- - 3 - face section 6330 hearing on the issues he raised in his hearing request because they have been determined by the courts to be frivolous or issues that the Appeals Office does not consider .

OPINION Because the underlying tax liability is not at issue, this Court’s review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion.

Petitioner received the September 13, 2003, levy notice, but he did not request a hearing under section 6330 regarding the levy notice .

1Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. - 2 - collect petitioner’s outstanding tax liability by levy pursuant to section 6330. Background At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in Fremont, Ohio. Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for taxable year 1998 showing an amount due. Respondent assessed the amount due and sent petitioner notice a

ndent subsequently sent petitioner notices of balance due for the unpaid balances of the 1996, 1997, 998, and 2000 assessments . On October 25, 2003, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6330 . In response, petitioner submitted a timely request for a sectio 6330 hearing, attaching to it a nine-page statement containing m stly frivolous and groundless arguments . Petitio er' s case was originally assigned to Settlement Officer

After the IRS Appeals hearing process, section 6330 gives us jurisdiction to review the Appeals officer’s determination.

"[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy v .

Petitioner's Section 6330 Hearing On January 12, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a Final Notice- -Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with respect to petitioner ' s unpaid income tax liabilities for 1994, 1995 , 1996, 1998 , and 1999 (the years at issue) .

ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 24891-04L. Filed January 10, 2007. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final notices of intent to levy for a number of taxable years, but P requested an IRS Appeals Office hearing (hearing) under sec. 6330, I.R.C., for only one of these years--2000. Upon P’s failure to participate in the granted hearing, an IRS Appeals officer made a determination as provided for in sec. 6330, I.R.C., that the IRS could proceed with collection of P’s year 200

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioners filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6330 (notice of determination) for 1981 - 2 - through 1987.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek review of respondent’s determination.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioners filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 (notice of determination) for 1980 through 1985, 1989, and 1990.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) - 2 - petitioners seek review of respondent’s determination.

On May 18, 2004, petitioners submitted to respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (request for a section 6330 hearing) .

With regard to the notice of intent to levy, respondent's Appeals officer treated the hearing as a section 6330 collection hearing .

Appeals hearing within 30 days beginning on the day after the 5-day period described above . Sec . 6320(a)(3)(B) and (b)(1) . Section 6320(c) provides that the Appeals hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330 . Section 6330(c) provides for review with respect to collection issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's proposed collection actions, and the possibility of collection alternatives . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A)

Petitioner's Section 6330 Hearing Petitioner's section 6330 hearing was assigned to Settlement Officer Cynthia Chadwell (Settlement Officer Chadwell) .

On October 23, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to Request a Hearing Under Section 6330 (final notice) .

Respondent further claims that petitioner may not raise the computational issue because he did not raise it with Appeals during his section 6330 hearing .

"[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy v .

Regs ., to be a reasonable interpretation of section 6330 (c) (2) (B)) .

his Court . In his objection to respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner agrees that no notice of determination was issued, laying the blame on respondent's failure to provide petitioner the opportunity for a hearing under section 6330 . Asserting that he should not be "left at the mercy of the Respondent", petitioner urges this Court to "intervene and enjoin the erroneous and premature levy action taken by the Respondent" . In his response to petitioner's objection to

Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant t o section 6330 but withdrew it after entering into an installment agreement with respondent .

Petitioner also urges that the Court consider his Installment Agreement Request and his testimony at trial, neither of which is part of the administrative record that respondent considered at the section 6330 hearing .

ot request a CDP hearing with respect to that earlier CDP Notice, the taxpayer already had an opportunity to dispute the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability.” Petitioner could have challenged as improper, due to the alleged failure of the IRS to mail to her a statutory notice of deficiency, the assessment for 1990 income taxes at a section 6330 hearing offered in the notice of intent to levy.

They demanded - 5 - that the settlement officer grant them a face-to-face hearing, that,,at the hearing, the settlement officer produce a multitude of documents (many of which were, once again, irrelevant to the section 6330 hearing), and that the settlement officer b e prepared to discuss at the hearing petitioners' frivolous and groundless arguments .

According to the statement, petitioners agreed to pay “$26,927.67”,1 in essence, only because an Internal Revenue Agent told them that they “could work out an affordable payment schedule.” The statement cites as petitioners’ objective in the section 6330 hearing the presentation to Appeals of “documentation with the view to discharge of the original assessed balance.” The Appeals officer who conducted the hearing informed petitioners that because the underlying tax liability had been 1The actual

When the Appeals Office issues a notice of determination to a taxpayer following a section 6330 hearing, the taxpayer has 30 days following the issuance of the notice to file a petition for review of the determination with the Tax Court or, if the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability, with a Federal District Court .

Petitioners sent respondent a letter dated November 5, 2003, requesting a section 6330 hearing.

"[E]vidence that [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy v .

On July 5, 2005, respondent' s Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter in which respondent notified petitioner that respondent had received petitioner's request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduled a telephone conference for August 11, 2005, at 2 :30 p.m.

ls hearing within 30 days beginning on the - 8 - day after the 5-day period described above . Sec. 6320(a)(3)(B) and (b)(1) . Section 6320(c) provides that the Appeals hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330 . Section 6330(c) provides for review with respect to collection issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's proposed collection actions, and the possibility of collection alternatives . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A)

On July 25, 2005, respondent's Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter in which respondent notified petitioner that respondent had received petitioner's request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduled a telephone conference for August 17, 2005, at 3 p .m .

In a letter dated June 28, 2005, petitioner requested a section 6330 hearing with respondent's Appeals Office, raising numerous frivolous tax protester type arguments .

MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge: Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330,¹ of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's tax liabilities for the 1988, 1989, ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.

Petitioners timely requested an administrative hearing before respondent's Appeals Office pursuant to section 6330 (section 6330 hearing) .

Insofar as the petition filed herein purports to be a petition for review pursuant to section 6330(d), we will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that respondent did not make a determination pursuant to section 6330 because petitioner failed to file a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing pursuant to section 6330(a)(2) and (3) (B) and (b) .

Upon proper and timely request, section 6330 requires respondent to provide taxpayers with an Appeals Office hearing relating to a notice of proposed levy.

Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the IRS can collect tax by levy . Upon request, a taxpayer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial officer from the IRS Office of Appeals . Sec . 6330(b)(1), (3) . At the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to verify that the requirements of any applic

"[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because it is not - 13 - relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy v .

Petitiond s' Section 6330 Action Relating to Taxable Yea r 1989 Petitioners failed to pay their income tax liability for 1989 .

OPINION Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the IRS can proceed with tax collection by levy.

On March 30, 2004, a section 6330 telephone hearing was held between Settlement Officer Linda Cochran (Ms .

Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-131. 5 The details of the reassessment are not in the record, and the parties do not raise any procedural issues regarding it. 6 The Federal tax lien is not at issue in the present case. Petitioner received a sec. 6330 hearing with regard to the filing of the lien, and respondent sustained the collection action. However, the details of the lien and the related hearing are not in the record. - 6 - claim any of the Hoyt-related expenses claimed on his return

Owens initially scheduled a telephone section 6330 hearing for October 28, 2004 .

"[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion ." Murphy v .

Mazaroli, the Appeals officer who conducted petitioners' section 6330 hearing, and relevant documents from the administrative file.

On December 16, 2004, Appeals Officer Kowalkowski conducted a section 6330 hearing with petitioner by telephone .

On September 9, 2005, petitioner's section 6330 hearing took place .

On July 1, 2002, respondent sent petitioners a final notice of intent to levy pursuant to section 6330 for taxable years 1997 and 1999.

ary 11, 2002, respondent issued a notice of determination, wherein he concluded that respondent could proceed with the proposed collection action. Discussion This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d). Petitioner received a notice of deficiency, and she timely filed a petition with this Court. A decision was entered with respect to the taxable year 1995 based on the agreement of the parties. Since the validity of the und

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: These consolidated cases concern: (1) A notice of determination concerning collection action (notice of determination) upholding liens under section 6320 for petitioners’ taxable years 1997 through 1999; (2) a notice of determination upholding a levy under section 6330 for petitioners’ taxable year 1999; (3) a notice of determination - 2 - upholding a lien for petitioners’ taxable year 2000.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy is begun.

issued a Final Notice Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. In the notice, respondent informed petitioner of respondent's intent to levy and of petitioner's right to a hearing before respondent's Appeals Office pursuant to section 6330. In response, petitioner ¹We are not called on to decide whether the return prepared by respondent met the requirements of a substitute return under sec. 6020(b). See Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 112 n.1 (2003). 2The assessed t

ave insufficient income and assets to full pay the outstanding tax liabilities for 2000, [and] they would like to propose either an Installment Payment Agreement or an Offer in Compromise.” On October 6, 2003, respondent’s Collection Division contacted petitioners’ attorney by telephone concerning the Requests for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing).

proceed with collection by levy of P’s unpaid liabilities following a telephonic conversation and an exchange of correspondence with P. P failed to prove that she requested a face-to-face interview with the Appeals officer during the course of the sec. 6330, I.R.C., hearing. Merry J. Chandler, pro se. Ann M. Welhaf and Jeffrey E. Gold, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: This case is before the Court to review a determination (the determination) made by

On July - 3 - 10, 2003, petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing).

Section 6330 further provides that - 7 - the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec. 6330(a) and (b). Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2) (A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, in

On May 5, 2003, respondent received petitioner’s request for a section 6330 hearing.

On September 23, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice Of Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6330 for 1996-1998.

She timely requested a section 6330 hearing, which Appeals conducted telephonically with her designated representative.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: These consolidated cases concern: (1) A notice of determination concerning collection action (notice of determination) upholding liens under section 6320 for petitioners’ taxable years 1997 through 1999; (2) a notice of determination upholding a levy under section 6330 for petitioners’ taxable year 1999; (3) a notice of determination - 2 - upholding a lien for petitioners’ taxable year 2000.

nsequently, respondent issued a Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, informing petitioners of respondent’s intent to levy and of petitioners’ right to a hearing before respondent’s Appeals Office pursuant to section 6330. In response, -4- petitioners timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. On March 19, 2003, petitioners attended a section 6330 hearing with Appeals Officer Michael A. Freitag, who had no prior involvement wi

IRC §6330 requires that the Settlement Officer consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer’s legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. The taxpayer has not participated meaningfully in trying to resolve his tax liability and has insisted instead on

- 2 - Background By notice of determination dated March 4, 2004, respondent determined that, pursuant to section 6330,1 he could proceed to collect by levy the following income tax liabilities: Tax year Unpaid income tax liability 1992 $24,288.47 1993 11,297.73 1994 12,000.59 1995 3,530.29 1996 8,788.57 1997 4,199.26 1998 2,055.46 1999 814.34 Total 66,974.71 On March 12, 2004, petitioner mailed a letter to the Court, which we filed on March 16, 2004,

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection action, and alternative means of collection.

On June 16, 2004, petitioner requested a section 6330 hearing regarding the notice of Federal tax lien filing and the notices of intent to levy for 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Section 6331(d) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayer written notice of the Secretary’s intent to levy, and section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayer written notice of his right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy is begun.1 If a section 6330 hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conducted by respondent’s Appeals Office, and, at the hearing, the Appeals officer or employee (without distinction, Appeals 1 A taxpayer receiving a notice of Federal

On September 2, 2003, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of intent to levy and right to a section 6330 hearing for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 at the Shorewood address (hearing notice).

Section 6330(c)(2)(A) prescribes issues that may be raised by a taxpayer in a section 6330 hearing, including spousal defenses to collection, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection action, and offers of collection alternatives.

T.C. Memo. 2005-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RANDAL W. HOWARD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 8719-03L. Filed May 9, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, because the underlying

Section 6330 Hearing On January 9, 2003, petitioner timely filed a Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing) for 1995, 5Form 4340 for 1999 reveals that respondent assessed an income tax liability of $9,627 in connection with the filing of petitioner’s 1999 return. The record does not explain why the assessed income tax lia

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as supplemented, on the ground that respondent issued an invalid notice of determination concerning a collection action under section 6330.1 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) -2- FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioners resided in Olympia, Washington, when the petition in this case was filed.

IRC § 6330 requires that the Office of Appeals consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayers’ legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Our determination is to deny relief, and sustain the - 9 - filed Notice of Federal Tax Lien. This determination was mad

OPINION Pursuant to section 6330, petitioner sought relief from respondent’s notice of determination sustaining the proposed collection action.

Petitioner’s original section 6330 hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2003, but it was rescheduled for a later date because of conflicts.

nsequently, respondent issued a Final Notice-- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, informing petitioners of respondent’s intent to levy and of petitioners’ right to a hearing before respondent’s Appeals Office pursuant to section 6330. In response, petitioners timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. In a letter dated April 25, 2003, Appeals Officer Jerry L. Johnson notified petitioners that (1) the section 6330 hearing had been schedul

Discussion Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of a person unless the Secretary first notifies the person in writing of the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office.

Discussion Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Section 6330 provides persons liable for tax with the right to a hearing with the Commissioner’s Appeals Office before the Secretary may levy upon the property of such persons.3 The 3SEC.

T.C. Memo. 2005-263 UNITED STATES TAX COURT DOROTHY ANN MAGEE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 5682-04L. Filed November 16, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate for taxable year 1996. Held: R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, under the facts and circumstances, R’s denial of equitable relief under sec. 6015(f

Feist, from respondent’s Tampa Appeals Office, mailed petitioner a letter that scheduled a section 6330 hearing for June 24, 2004.

On September 23, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice Of Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6330 for 1996-1998.

[sic] Balancing Efficient Collection Intrusiveness IRC§6330 requires that the Appeals Officer consider whether any collection action balance the need for efficient tax collection with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

On or about March 11, 2002,3 petitioner submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, requesting a hearing under section 6330 with respect to the taxable years 1990 through 2000.

- 2 - whether, in the context of a section 6330 proceeding, petitioner is entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability for 1995.

OPINION Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a “fair hearing”.

ifying petitioner of the determination to proceed with collection of the outstanding liabilities for the 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1996 taxable years. Discussion This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d). Where, as here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at issue,3 we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza 3 Indeed, it appears from respondent’

If the appeals officer recommends “enforcement of collection action including levy,” without having produced these specific documents, then it will be obvious that the appeals officer is simply attempting to thwart and circumvent the Code Section 6330 in order to enable the IRS to continue its practice of making the illegal seizures uncovered by the Senate Finance Committee * * * which THE “DUE PROCESS HEARING” was designed to eliminate.

Petitioner did not file a Form 12153, - 6 - Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing; however, respondent treated petitioner’s January 31, 2001, letter as the equivalent of a Form 12153--i.e., as a request for a section 6330 hearing.

nras T.C. Memo. 2004-238 UNITED.STATES TAX COURT HECTOR CASTILLO AND MOONEEM CASTILLO, Petitioners y. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 2557-03L. Filed October 14, 2004. Ps filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R to proceed with collection by levy of assessed income tax liabilities plus penalties and interest for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Held: R's rejection of an installment agreement propo

On June 28, 2002, petitioners elected to exercise their right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent's Office of Appeals.

e taxpayer of his right to a hearing before an impartial Appeals officer. Sec. 6320. Pursuant to section 6320(c) the hearing is to be conducted pursuant to the rules provided in subsections (c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and (e) of section 6330. If the Commissioner issues a determination letter adverse to the position of the taxpayer, the taxpayer may seek judicial review of the determination. Sec. 6330(d). This Court has established the following standards of review in consider

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection action, and alternative means of collection.

The instant proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code.¹ The issue for decision is whether respondent may proceed with collection action as so determined.

cretion. E.g., Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002). Notice of Deficiency Petitioner received a notice of deficiency for 1997. He is, therefore, not entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability - 9 - at the hearing conducted under section 6330. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Nonetheless, he argues that the notice of deficiency was not signed by someone in authority and was invalid. This position is frivolous and groundless. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165-166 (2002) (noting that

In addition, respondent has, in all other respects, complied with the requirements of section 6330 so as to be entitled to proceed with collection of petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities for 1991 and 1996.

MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE, Judge: The issues before the Court concern respondent’s motion to dismiss this section 6330 case as moot and petitioner’s “Motion For Sanctions, Contempt and For Other Relief”, as supplemented.

s. Petitioner responded to the November 13, 2003, letter by letter dated November 20, 2003. In that letter, petitioner requested a face-to-face hearing and stated that he had post office receipts to prove that he had timely requested a hearing under section 6330. By letter dated January 6, 2004, Ms. Chadwell scheduled a face-to-face hearing for January 21, 2004. The hearing date was subsequently changed to February 23, 2004, at petitioner’s request. Petitioner’s hearing under section 6330 was he

Section 6330 generally provides that the Secretary cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice of, and the opportunity for, an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrat

of his/her right to a hearing before an impartial Appeals officer. Sec. 6320. Pursuant to section 6320(c), the hearing is to be conducted consistent with procedures set forth in subsections (c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and (e) of section 6330. If the Commissioner issues a determination letter adverse to the position of the taxpayer, the taxpayer may seek judicial review of that determination. Sec. 6330(d). Preliminarily we deal with a jurisdictional issue. Petitioner maintain

Prior to the section 6330 hearing (hearing), respondent sent petitioner transcripts of account for 1996 and 1997 at petitioner’s request.

678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy “if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, 5Had petitioner filed an amended petition setting forth a valid claim for relief under sec. 6330, it might have been appropriate to remand the case to respondent’s Appeals Office. - 6 - depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any materi

Rather, in his request for a hearing under section 6330, petitioner noted that the proposed levy “will result in taxpayer’s income being cut by 50%.” In a letter dated January 24, 2002, Settlement Officer Craca informed petitioner that his hearing under section 6330 was 2 According to respondent, petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996 were $3,373.62 and $4,442.63, respec

Molina timely submitted a request for a section 6330 hearing (hearing request).

Petitioner argues that section 6330(e), which provides for suspension of levies when levy cases are pending under section 6330, also applies by cross-reference to lien cases under section 6320.

During subsequent conversations with respondent, petitioner consented to the inclusion of his 1993 tax year, in addition to his 1994 tax year, for purposes of the section 6330 hearing.

Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.

In a letter attached to their request for a section 6330 hearing, petitioners contended that the period of limitations under section 6501(a) had expired, that respondent had not issued them a notice of deficiency, and that the amount of their tax liability had not been determined.

Because of the frivolous nature of petitioners’ arguments, respondent initially refused to treat the claim as a timely request for a hearing under section 6330 and initiated a levy action against - 4 - petitioners.

On July 10, 2002, Appeals Officer Eric Johansen conducted a section 6330 hearing (hearing) in person with petitioner.

On January 18, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice-- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6330 with respect to petitioner’s income tax liability for 1998.

ified in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. Sec. 6320(b). Hearings under section 6320 are conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). When an Appeals officer issues a determination regarding a disputed collection action, section 6330(d) allows a taxpayer to - 9 - seek judicial review with the Tax Court or a District Court. Where the validity of the under

The issues for our consideration are: (1) Whether petitioner was granted an opportunity for a hearing within the meaning of section 6330; and (2) whether respondent’s determination to proceed with the proposed collection activity was an abuse of discretion.

ourt Rules of Practice and Procedure. 3On Mar. 8, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of the right to a hearing with respect to his total unpaid tax liabilities; petitioner did not file a timely request for a sec. 6330 hearing. After an equivalent hearing, respondent upheld the proposed levy. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the proposed levy. See infra p. 16. However, because petitioner has conflated the lien and levy issues and made some of the s

Petitioner’s Challenge to His Underlying Tax Liability A taxpayer may challenge the validity of his underlying tax liability in an Appeals hearing conducted pursuant to section 6330 only if the taxpayer “did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability." Sec.

ounsel’s office who had previously provided advice to R’s revenue officer. Following the rejection by R’s Appeals Office of Ps’ offer in compromise, R issued to Ps a notice of intent to levy. In response, Ps filed a request for a hearing pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C. The requested sec. 6330, I.R.C., hearing was conducted by Appeals Officer Martin (AO Martin), who had no prior involvement with the tax and tax periods involved in the review. AO Martin determined that collection by levy was appropr

the 1996 taxable year and you did not appeal the notice. Validity of the Assessment The assessments are all valid according to the Appeals Officer's review of the transcripts of account. * * * * * Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness IRC Sec. 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer con- sider whether any collection action balance [sic] the need for efficient tax collection with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. You have not provided

6673(a)(1) provides: (continued...) - 8 - warning given by letter dated February 7, 2002, at the section 6330 hearing on March 28, 2002, and by the Court, petitioner authorized Mr.

Commissioner, supra, we held that we lacked jurisdiction under section 6330 inasmuch as the taxpayer failed to file his initial petition with the District Court within 30 days of the notice of determination.

ination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination). An attach- ment to the notice of determination stated in pertinent part: What are the Issues? The taxpayer requested a hearing under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6330 to contest the application of a notice of intent to levy, Form 1058. Verification of Legal and Procedural Requirements The requirements of all applicable laws and administra- tive procedures have been met: The liabilities were asse

Petitioner appears to argue that at the hearing he was not provided documents demonstrating that the verification requirement of section 6330 had been met.

- 6 - Section 6330 generally provides that the Secretary cannot proceed with collection by levy on any property of any person until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. Davis

Petitioners timely requested a hearing pursuant to section 6330 with respect to a notice of intent to levy regarding petitioners’ income tax liabilities for 1995, 1996, and 1997.4 An Appeals officer and Mr.

Toscher met to hold a section 6330 hearing (July 6, 2000, - 4 - hearing).2 At the July 6, 2000, hearing, the issues raised by Mr.

A Form 1058, Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, was sent to petitioner on February 5, 2001, and he requested a section 6330 hearing.

ceived from petitioner a Form 12153, Request For A Collection Due Process Hearing. Petitioner’s request was dated December 12, 2000. The Appeals Office initially informed petitioner that he would be afforded a “collection due process” hearing under section 6330. However, the Appeals Office subsequently concluded that petitioner had failed to file his request for a hearing within the time prescribed in section 6330, and, therefore, the Appeals Office granted petitioner an “equivalent hearing”. Se

OPINION Pursuant to section 6330, petitioner sought relief from respondent’s proposed collection action.

After petitioner failed to pay her 1994 income tax liability, respondent, by means of certified mail dated April 11, 2000, sent petitioner a Form 1058, Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing, as required under section 6330. Petitioner timely mailed to respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, and a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. In addition to the collection hearing, petitioner sought innocent spouse relief in th

Respondent mailed petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or section 6330 (notice of determination), dated February 19, 2002, determining that the filing of the tax lien was an appropriate enforcement action.

linquent returns filed by the petitioner or by consent to the assessments.” Respondent’s counsel further stated that petitioner was invited to submit “corrected returns” relating to 1977 through 1984, but she “[did not] know * * * [whether] there was any discussion beyond that.” The Court asked respondent’s counsel why Appeals did not hold another section 6330 hearing in order to allow petitioner an opportunity to raise the underlying tax liability with regard to those tax years.

Balancing efficient collection and intrusiveness IRC § 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

The final notice informed petitioner of his tax liability for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.2 In addition, the final notice informed petitioner of (1) respondent’s intent to collect that liability through a levy upon his property pursuant to section 6331 and (2) petitioner’s right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals) to discuss the proposed levy.

On August 30, 2001, the taxpayer submitted a timely request, under Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), for a collection due process hearing.

ng (Letter 1058) covering the taxable years 1993 and 1994 after identifying a potential levy source. On December 29, 2001, petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, to respondent requesting a hearing under section 6330. On Form 12153, petitioner identified the taxable periods at issue as “beginning Jan. 1, 1993, ending Dec. 31, 2001” and supplied the following reasons for contesting the proposed collection action: Claimant never received cash. Claimant

Maloney asked respondent to calculate excess FICA (continued...) - 6 - OPINION This case involves determinations under section 6330 to proceed with proposed levies to collect petitioners’ unpaid tax for 1984 and Mr.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and an opportunity for administrative review of the matter in the form of an Appeals Office hearing. Judicial review of the administrative determination is available if the taxpayer petitions th

2003-271, we held that Appeals Officer Martin (AO Martin) was an impartial officer at the time she conducted the section 6330 hearing at issue in this case.

Petitioner appears to argue that at the hearing she was not provided documents demonstrating that the verification requirement of section 6330 had been met.

ettlement Officer has had no prior involvement with respect to these liabilities. Relevant issues raised by the taxpayer You were given the opportunity to raise any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed collection action per IRC Section 6330. You believe you do not owe the tax, because you were not a landed immigrant at the time you won the lottery. You feel the pending court decision on a later year will prove that you are not liable for the tax. If you are found to owe the

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judoe: This case arises from petitioners' request for our review (pursuant to section 6330¹) of respondent's decision to proceed with collection by levy with respect to their outstanding 1990 and 1991 tax liabilities.

6673(a)(1) provides: (1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.-- Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that-- (A) proceedings before it have been instituted or (continued...) - 8 - warning given at the section 6330 hearing and the warning given by the Court, petitioners did not abandon their frivolous arguments but authorized Mr.

On December 14, 2001, petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, requesting a hearing under section 6330 (the hearing).

Pursuant to section 6330, petitioners are entitled to only one hearing during which they may raise any relevant issue relating to the proposed levy, including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and offers of collection alternatives.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GERBER, Judge: Respondent made the determination to proceed to collect, by levy, petitioners’ 1995, 1996, and 1997 outstanding tax liabilities in the amounts of $6,697.43, - 2 - $5,285.24, and $3,755.53.1 Petitioners, under section 6330,2 seek review by this Court of respondent’s determination.

11382-01L and 14817-02L (the section 6330 cases), petitioners primarily dispute respondent’s assessment of additions to tax and refusal to abate interest on 1Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Charles R.

Petitioner also contends that a section 6330 hearing before an Appeals officer was not properly held.

- 4 - OPINION Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a hearing which consists of the following elements: (1) An impartial officer will conduct the hearing; (2) the conducting officer will receive verification from the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and administrative proce

Section 6320(b)(3), however, defines an impartial officer as “an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax specified in section (a)(3)(A) before the first hearing under this section or section 6330.” The impartiality requirement ensures that a hearing officer has had no prior involvement in the determination and assessment of the underlying tax liability that is the subject of the hearing.

Thus, the collection period relating to petitioners’ 1982 tax liabilities had not expired as of the date of petitioners’ request for a section 6330 hearing (i.e., July 16, 2001) and is further extended, pursuant to section 6330(e)(1), during the hearing and while the appeals are pending.

Underlying Liability Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis.

11382-01L and 14817-02L (the section 6330 cases), petitioners primarily dispute respondent’s assessment of additions to tax and refusal to abate interest on 1Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Charles R.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if - 14 - dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissione

rgues that because the assessment was made on the RACS report rather than Form 23C, Summary Record of Assessments, no valid assessment exists and because the Appeals officer did not review a Form 23C she did not verify the assessment as required by section 6330. Petitioner further argues that review of a transcript of account is insufficient verification for the purposes of section 6330. Section 6330(c)(1) does not require the Commissioner to rely on a particular document to satisfy the verifica

ment, during 1997, respondent assessed a $532.76 penalty under section 6682 in connection with petitioner’s 1996 tax year. On July 27, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing under section 6330. In response to this notice, petitioner requested a section 6330 hearing, which occurred during spring 2001. On May 2, 2001, petitioner was sent a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under section 6320/6330. This noti

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given - 11 - notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissione

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if - 7 - dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

filed as an Amended Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320 (c) or 6330:d). On June 14, 2001, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330 (d) . Petitioner objected to this motion. On January 2, 2002, respondent filed a Motion .to Withdraw Respondent' s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On January 2, 2002, respondent also filed a Motion for. Partial Summary Judgme

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Held: Because P received the deficiency notice and had an opportunity to dispute R’s determination, P is statutorily barred from challenging the existence or amount of his liability in this proceeding. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), I.R.C. The fact that R’s Appeals officer considered the merits of the loss at the administrative hearing and the further fact that the notice of determination addressed those merits do not constitute a waiver of the statutory bar. Held, further, sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E11,

Nor have petitioners persuaded us that they should not be treated for purposes of section 6330 as receiving the notices of deficiency.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

- 15 - Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

- 8 - follows: You requested a Collection Due Process Hearing under IRC §6330 objecting to proposed levy action.

The final notice informed petitioners of (1) respondent’s intention to levy under section 6331 and (2) petitioners’ right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals).

te a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted because (1) his only argument regarding 1995 and 1996 was that he wanted to contest the underlying liabilities for those years, (2) he received a notice of deficiency for 1995 and 1996, and (3) pursuant to sec. 6330 he is barred from contesting his underlying liabilities for 1995 and 1996. This opinion addresses petitioner's 1997 taxable year on which we concluded he could proceed forward. Id 3 Ms. Harrell was married to Ricky Harrell, Sr., when Calesa

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way of a levy action until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative - 8 - review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The issue in this case is whether respondent had met the requirements of section 6330.¹ I ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

Petitioner timely filed two requests, corresponding to the two notices, for a section 6330 hearing.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given - 8 - notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner

Generally, section 6330 provides that “the Commissioner cannot proceed with enforced collection by way of levy until the taxpayer has been given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, the taxpayer may seek judicial review of the administrative determination”.

Petitioners’ position is that respondent did not provide petitioners with an opportunity for a hearing as required by section 6330 and therefore that this Court should dismiss this case because petitioners claim the notices of determination are invalid.

till not paid. We previously asked you to pay this, but we still haven’t received your payment. This letter is your notice of our intent to levy under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6331 and your right to receive Appeals consideration under IRC Section 6330. We may file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien at any time to protect the government’s interest. A lien is a public notice to your creditors that the government has a right to your current assets, including any assets you acquire after we fil

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

The final notice informed petitioners -4- of (1) respondent’s intention to levy under section 6331 and (2) petitioners’ right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals).

T.C. Memo. 2002-67; Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-53; Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. In the alternative, petitioner asserts generally that she did not receive the type of “due process” hearing that is - 5 - anticipated under section 6330. To the contrary, petitioner and petitioner’s representative were repeatedly notified of respondent’s willingness to meet, of suggested dates and times for a meeting, and of respondent’s willingness to consider any specific, good faith is

On June 23, 2000, the IRS provided petitioner with a section 6330 hearing.

- 6 - Although section 6330 does not prescribe the standard of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing the Commissioner’s administrative determinations, we have stated that, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

§ 6320 or § 6330 was - 2 - sent to petitioners with respect to a proposed levy to collect liabilities arising with respect to tax year 1997.” As explained in detail below, we shall grant respondent’s motion, as supplemented.

, Respondent Docket No. 10741-01L. Filed June 4, 2002. Daniel J. Tapio and Ruth E. Tapio, pro sese. Randall L. Preheim, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION GERBER, Judge: This case involves the question of whether respondent, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6330,1 may proceed with the collection of petitioners’ outstanding and unpaid tax liability. On February 5, 2002, respondent moved for 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period during which respo

Discussion Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on a person’s property until the person has been given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter.

to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. Petitioner resided in Robesonia, Pennsylvania, at the time that his petition was filed. In response to a notice of intent to levy for 1991 and 1992, petitioner requested a hearing under section 6330. On May 8, 2001, an Appeals officer sent to petitioner a letter as follows: I scheduled the conference you requested on this case for * * * [June 13, 2001, 10 a.m.]. Please let me know within 10 days from the date of this letter whether t

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way of a levy action until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and if dissatisfied, the person has an opportunity for judicial review of the administrative de

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given - 11 - notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissione

A taxpayer may dispute his or her underlying tax liability at the section 6330 hearing only if he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency for the taxes in question or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether respondent has met the requirements of section 6330.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court under section 6330(d).¹ We must decide.whether (1) respondent abused his discretion under section 6330 and (2) petitioner is liable for a section 6673(a)(1) penalty.

The final notice -4- informed petitioner of (1) respondent’s intention to levy under section 6331 and (2) petitioner’s right under section 6330 to a hearing with respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals).

Sept. 28, 1993, was not a collection action subject to sec. 6320. See sec. 301.6320- 1(a)(1), (b)(2) Q&A-B2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 118 n.3 (2001). 4The levy made on Jan. 10, 1997, was nót subject to sec. 6330. See sec. 301.6330-1(a)(1), (3) Q&A-A4, (4) Example 1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Nicklaus v. Commissioner, supra. - 5 - Collection Due Process Hearing (Form 12153). In Form 12153, petitioner alleged: Have been requesting hearing for

Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a "fair hearing". Sec. 6330(b). A "fair hearing" consists of the following elements: (1) An impartial officer will conduct the hearing; (2) the conducting officer will receive verification from the Secretary that the requirements of applic

till not paid. We previously asked you to pay this, but we still haven’t received your payment. This letter is your notice of our intent to levy under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6331 and your right to receive Appeals consideration under IRC Section 6330. * * * * * * * If you don’t pay the amount you owe, make alternative arrangements to pay, or request Appeals consideration within 30 days from the date of this letter, we may take your property, or rights to property, such as real estate

On September 7, 2000, with respect to the proposed lien filings, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of - 5 - determination pursuant to section 6330 in which respondent determined that the lien filings constituted appropriate action and denied petitioner any relief.

- 2 - Held: Pursuant to sec. 6330(d), I.R.C., our jurisdiction is dependent upon the issuance of a determination and the filing of a petition within 30 days of the issuance of such determination. Because R did not issue a determination to P, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Lucielle J. Offiler, pro se. Monica J. Miller, for respondent. OPINION RUWE, Judge: The petition in this case is based on respondent’s alleged failure to hold a meaningful collection due process hearing as

r dated June 8, 1997. Petitioner failed to petition this Court within the time required by section 6213 with respect to the notice of deficiency. Subsequently, on April 7, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy pursuant to section 6330. The notice stated that petitioner owed taxes, penalties, and interest totaling $7,729.59 for the 1994 taxable year and that respondent was preparing to collect that amount by levy. The notice stated that petitioner could request a "Coll

Section 6330 provides for a similar due process hearing where the Commissioner has proposed to levy on the taxpayer's property. Section 6320(c) adopts the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e) governing the issues that may be raised in a due process hearing and the means for obtaining judicial review of the matter. See Goza v. Commi

Section 6330 provides for a similar hearing where the Commissioner has proposed to levy on the taxpayer’s property. Section 6320(c) adopts the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e) - 7 - governing the issues that may be raised in a hearing and the means for obtaining judicial review of the matter. See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice of, and the opportunity for, an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing); if dissatisfied with the outcome of such hearing, the tax

therwise been subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under an alternative to assessment 6 In his objections to the trustees’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, respondent argued, among other things, that the Court had jurisdiction under sec. 6330 “because the taxes respondent seeks to collect are income taxes, a tax over which this Court generally has jurisdiction.” - 5 - under section 6201(a)(3).” On October 2, 2000, a hearing on respondent’s motions was held at the Court’s trial s

therwise been subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under an alternative to assessment 6 In his objections to the trustees’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, respondent argued, among other things, that the Court had jurisdiction under sec. 6330 “because the taxes respondent seeks to collect are income taxes, a tax over which this Court generally has jurisdiction.” - 5 - under section 6201(a)(3).” On October 2, 2000, a hearing on respondent’s motions was held at the Court’s trial s

therwise been subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under an alternative to assessment 6 In his objections to the trustees’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, respondent argued, among other things, that the Court had jurisdiction under sec. 6330 “because the taxes respondent seeks to collect are income taxes, a tax over which this Court generally has jurisdiction.” - 5 - under section 6201(a)(3).” On October 2, 2000, a hearing on respondent’s motions was held at the Court’s trial s

These cases are before the Court pursuant to the collection review procedures set forth in section 6330.3 Before 3 Sec.

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION RUWE, Judge: The petition in this case is based on respondent’s alleged failure to hold a meaningful collection due process hearing as required by section 6330. Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that petitioner did not make a timely request for a collection due process hearing by the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Appeals (Appeals), and therefore respondent was not required to, and did not, hold a hearing or issue a notice of determ

ing him that he owed a balance for the periods at issue. To collect the unpaid TFRPs, the IRS issued a Notice of Intent to Levy (levy notice) on November 6, 2023, which informed Mr. Shaban of his right to a collection due process (CDP) hearing under section 6330. On November 21, 2023, the IRS sent Mr. Shaban a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing (lien notice) notifying 2 The IRS also made the determination to assess TFRPs for the additional periods ending March 31, 2018, June 30, 2018, December 31

Because the power to levy is a strong remedy for collecting unpaid tax, section 6330 gives taxpayers the right to a hearing with IRS Appeals, i.e., a CDP hearing.

In view of the history outlined above, we take Congress’s choice of the word “determine” to be dispositive of the question of the proper 14 Before December 18, 2015, section 6330 allowed taxpayers to “appeal” the IRS’s determination to the Tax Court.

This is in contrast to requesting a CDP hearing to contest a levy under section 6330, which explicitly forbids the IRS from levying on a taxpayer’s property before notifying the taxpayer in writing of the right to a CDP hearing and permitting the hearing to occur.

However, section 6330 does not require Appeals to give a taxpayer copies of what it consults.

se amounts were assessed on February 15, 2021. In an effort to collect the unpaid 2018 liability, the IRS issued a notice of intent to levy on November 1, 2021, which informed Mr. Pfirrman of his right to a collection due process (CDP) hearing under section 6330. Although the IRS received a signed return receipt, Mr. Pfirrman did not request a CDP hearing within the 30-day period as contemplated by section 6330(a)(3)(B). The Commissioner thereafter levied on certain federal payments to Mr. Pfirr

5 [*5] her CDP hearing. That AO denied her (f) relief again and sustained the levy in a notice of determination issued in June 2023. C. 2018 The couple again underpaid their tax for 2018: Withholding Estimated Tax Year Tax Owed Paid Paid 2018 $61,225 — $5,972 Sample again asked for innocent-spouse relief. Because the Commissioner ha

Our standard of review under section 6330 is abuse of discretion, which means we reject an agency’s decisions that adopt “an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.” Fargo v.

§ 301.6330-1(e)(1); see also Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002). In the Attachment to the Notice of Determination, SO Paz wrote that she verified the assessment, proper issuance of the notice and demand and the notice of NFTL filing, and a balance due.25 SO Paz wrote that “[t]he NFTL appear[s] to be the most approp

was not a clear expression from Congress to imbue jurisdictional consequences. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1498. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the statute is not jurisdictional. Id. at 1501. Section 6213 is arguably similar to section 6330. Accordingly, in Hallmark, this Court was asked to consider the jurisdictional nature of section 6213(a) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boechler. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 126. We held that the 90-day defici

because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending,” or because relief from joint and several liability is sought pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015.

nt agreement under section 6159; (2) that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to a compromise agreement under section 7122; (3) for which collection is suspended as to that individual because of a requested or pending due process hearing under section 6330; or (4) for which collection is suspended as to that individual because of an election or request for relief under section 6015(b), (c), or (f).

Petitioner is presumably entitled to challenge the existence or amount of that liability in a section 6330 proceeding in the event respondent seeks to collect it.

206, 220 (2001))), rev’g on other grounds 115 8 Treasury Regulation § 1.6015-5(b)(2)(i) also defines “collection activity” as a section 6330 notice and the filing of a suit by the United States against the requesting spouse for the collection of the joint tax liability, but it does not include a notice of deficiency, the filing of a notice of federal tax lien, or a demand for payment of tax.

The Whittakers timely asked for a collection due process (CDP) hearing under section 6330.3 The Whittakers wanted to compromise their tax debt, which triggered the IRS to refer their case to an IRS offer examiner who told them that they needed to fill out and return IRS Form 433–A (OIC), Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, if they wanted her to consider an alternative to forced c

such hearings has lapsed. In a further effort to collect the Beltons’ unpaid tax liabilities, the IRS issued a notice of intent to levy for each of the relevant years, informing the Beltons of their right to a collection due process hearing under section 6330. The Beltons requested collection due process hearings in response to certain of these notices, but either made such requests untimely, withdrew the requests, or waived their rights to judicial review of any notice of determination issued

Shapiro), contests his underlying liability for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(2) and 6654 for his 2012–15 taxable years (years at issue) in this section 6330 proceeding.1 Dr.

6 [*6] under section 6330 is requested or pending.” § 7345(b)(2)(B)(i).

Section 6330 does not require that the Appeals officer rely upon any particular document in order to verify that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed. Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262 (2002). Where a taxpayer specifically alleges that he or she never received a Letter 1153, an Appeals officer cannot rely solely on

On October 19, 2017, Appeals issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 and Your Request for Relief from Joint and Several Liability under Section 6015.

Finally, proceedings under section 7623 differ from those under section 6330, which governs hearings concerning proposed levies.

A taxpayer has had a prior opportunity to dispute the liability where he “previously received a CDP Notice under section 6330 with respect to the same tax and tax period and did not request a CDP hearing with respect to that earlier CDP Notice.” Treas.

Congress wedded innocent-spouse relief to CDP law by specifically providing that a spouse could raise entitlement to innocent-spouse relief in a CDP hearing. Regulations provide that when a taxpayer raises innocent-spouse relief in a CDP hearing, the innocent-spouse issue is “governed in all respects by the provisions of . . . section 6015

We have held that our jurisdiction under section 6330 includes review of the Commissioner’s determination regarding a collection action with respect to a section 6702 frivolous return penalty.

al officer for purposes of preparing the opinion and entering a decision based on the record of trial, or, alternatively, allowing the parties to (continued...) Served 06/08/21 - 2 - [*2] notice of determination that sustained a proposed levy under section 6330 with respect to employment taxes reportable on Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return (Form 941 liabilities), for the periods ending September 30 and December 31, 1998 (periods at issue).2 Petitioner asserts that he is not liab

r abuse of discretion under section 6330(d), we are not limited by the Administrative Procedure Act * * * and our review is not limited to the administrative record." The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, has concluded that, when in a sec. 6330 case we review for abuse of discretion, the record rule applies. See Keller v. Commissioner, 568 F.3d 710, 718 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'g in part T.C. Memo. 2006-166, and aff'g in part, rev'g in part decisions in related cases. Under sec. 7482(

5 T.C. at 320. 2. Appeals Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Sustaining the Levy Action Sections 6320 and 6330 provide taxpayers the opportunity for notice and a hearing upon the filing of an NFTL (section 6320) and before a levy to collect unpaid tax (section 6330). If a taxpayer requests a CDP hearing, the settlement officer conducting the hearing must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. Secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(1). The taxpayer may raise at

“If the taxpayer previously received a CDP Notice under section 6330 with respect to the same tax and tax period and did not request a CDP hearing with respect to that earlier CDP Notice, the taxpayer had a prior opportunity to dispute the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability.” Sec.

One notice ofdetermination, concerning the section 6330 levy, did not sustain the proposed levy and directed the IRS to reinstate the direct debit portion ofpetitioners' installment agreement.

The regulations interpreting section 6330 provide that a "taxpayer can only ask the court to consider an issue, including a challenge to the underlying tax liability, that was properly raised in the taxpayer's CDP hearing." Sec.

Petitioner was advised that respondent would be initiating a collection action under section 6330 with respect to petitioner's 2003 and 2008 outstanding tax liabilities.

During the section 6330/6320 hearing, petitioners raised only one issue for consideration--whetherthe IRS should levy on the IRA.

However, a seriously delinquent tax debt excludes "a debt with respect to which collection is suspended * * * because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending." R subsec.

d. S_e_e Rule 34(b)(4) ("Any issue not raised in the assignments oferror shall be deemed to be conceded."); £ Lloyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-60, at *7 n.3 (deeming similarly conceded any sec. 6751(b)(1) challenge to assessable penalties in a sec. 6330 levy case). In the notice ofdeficiency respondent determined a 10% additional tax pursuant to sec. 72(t) related to the Roth IRA. However, petitioner used the distributed funds to purchase a home in 2015. The parties have stipulated that pe

"[W]e do not havejurisdiction under section 6330 to 'determine an overpayment ofan unrelated liability.'" Id.

The FNIL also stated that the Government might seize petitioner's property to satisfy the amount due but that he could appeal the proposed seizure ofhis assets by requesting a CDP hearing under section 6330 by June 22, 2016.

In this regard section 7623(b) resembles section 6330, which governs collection due process (CDP) cases and is similarly silent about this Court's remand authority.

rjurisdiction. Regardless, respondent mailed the letter on August 28, 2017, but petitioner did not file its petition with this Court until May 2, 2018. Assuming without deciding that the August 28, 2017, letter could constitute a determination under sec. 6330, the petition was filed well outside the 30-day window for filing under sec. 6330(d)(1). - 11 - Revenue Service are familiar with and act in accord with" such rights. It does not independently establish a basis forjurisdiction in this Court

at 50 ("As petitioners have not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the imposition ofthe frivolous return penalties, they may contest the penalties both at their section 6330 hearing and before this Court."); see also Shirley v.

ch 3, 2016, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing regarding the unpaid additions to tax for 2012. Petitioner filed with the Appeals Office a timely request for an administrative hearing under section 6330. Petitioner's case was assigned within the Appeals Office to Settlement Officer Shirley Rivers (SO Rivers). On July 20, 2016, SO Rivers conducted an administrative hearing by telephone conference call with petitioner and her father, Todd

Conclusion After review ofthe entire administrative record, the Court concludes that SO West satisfied the verification requirements ofsection 6330 and did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the notice ofintent to levy and the notice ofFederal tax lien.

Finally, petitioners have not alleged that respondent otherwise failed to comply with the requirements set forth in section 6330; nor did we find anything in the record indicating a failure.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer ofthe amount ofunpaid tax and ofthe taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy has begun.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer ofthe amount ofunpaid tax and ofthe taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy has begun.

MEMORANDUM OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action under section 6330 sustaining a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 (years in issue).

These sections allow us to review a determination made by the IRS Appeals Office to sustain proposed liens and 2 Taxpayers are entitled to only one CDP hearing under section 6330 per tax year.

ace CDP hearing because, among other reasons, he failed to provide the requested information including Federal income tax returns for 2005 through 2012 and a completed Form 433-A. This Court has held that a face-to-face hearing is not required under section 6330. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000); Williamson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-188, slip op. at 8-9; Stockton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-186, slip op. at 11; Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17, sli

ny applicable law or administrative procedure have been met,2 consider issues properly raised by the taxpayer, and consider whether the proposed 2 Petitioner has not challenged whether the settlement officer satisfied the verification requirements ofsec. 6330, and our review ofthe record and the notice ofdetermination likewise reveals no irregularities. - 6 - [*6] collection action balances the need for the efficient collection oftaxes with the taxpayer's legitimate concern that any collection a

On the basis ofour review ofthe administrative record and notice of determination, the Court concludes that the settlement officer satisfied the verification requirements ofsection 6330 and that respondent's collection action should be sustained, with appropriate reductions to petitioner's liabilities for 2005 and 2011 to be determined, consistent with our conclusions above.

6320(c) provides that "[f]or purposes ofthis section, subsection[] * * * (e) * * * ofsection 6330 shall apply." Thus, the following discussion ofsec.

6320(c) provides that "[f]or purposes ofthis section, subsection[] * * * (e) * * * ofsection 6330 shall apply." Thus, the following discussion ofsec.

6330; see Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179-180 (2000). Section 6330(f)(2) provides an exception to the normal procedures prescribed in that section in the event the Secretary has served a levy on a State to 6Petitioners resided in California at the time the petition was filed. - 6 - collec

Petitioner responded to this notice by filing a timely petition for review with the Court under section 6330 asserting that "[t]he assessments and penalties regarding the tax years in question were unlawfully assessed, in that there is no valid deficiency.

31. See Rule 34(b)(4) ("Any issue not raised in the assignments oferror shall be deemed to be conceded."); c[ Lloyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-60, at *7 n.3 (deeming similarly conceded any sec. 6751(b)(1) challenge to assessable penalties in a sec. 6330 review ofa collection action). - 30 - [*30] 2014-38, affd, 651 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2016). Petitioner filed the returns at issue after the effective date ofthe PPA. Consequently, the reasonable cause defense is not available to him. The p

Petitioners acknowledged receiving the Notices CP 49, and on June 25, 2013, they mailed a letter (rather than Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing)) to the IRS in which they challenged: (1) The application ofwithheld tax returns [sic].

Petitioners acknowledged receiving the Notices CP 49, and on June 25, 2013, they mailed a letter (rather than Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing)) to the IRS in which they challenged: (1) The application ofwithheld tax returns [sic].

Each ofthe notices ofdetermination included an attachment that stated in perti- nent part: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing with Appeals under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330 following receipt ofthe Final Notice, Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing.

An attachment to the notice ofdetermination stated in pertinent part: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION You have requested a Collection Due Process hearing under IRC § 6330 as to the appropriateness ofa tax levy * * * A review ofall the information available indicates that (1) all legal and procedural requirements have been followed, (2) issues raised by you have been considered, and (3) the balancing ofthe need for efficient collection with your concerns that the collection action be no more intrusive

le by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent made the determination to proceed to collect petitioner's 2011 income tax liability by levy. Petitioner seeks review ofthat determination under section 6330. We consider whether there was an abuse ofdiscretion due to respondent's refusal to treat petitioner's 2011 income tax liability as satisfied by means of payments that respondent had misapplied. Background Petitioner was a resident ofFlor

At the conclusion ofthe section 6330 hearing the Appeals officer must determine whether to sustain the collection actions and take into account: (1) the verification that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure have been met, (2) the relevant issues raised by the taxpayer, and -8- [*8] (3) whether the proposed collection action appropriatelybalance

2017-60, at *7 n.3 (deeming similarly conceded any section 6751(b)(1) challenge to assessable penalties in a section 6330 levy case).

Subsections (c), (d) (other than paragraph (3)(B) thereof), (e), and (g) ofsection 6330 govern the conduct ofthis hearing and any subsequent review.

ed. See Rule 34(b)(4) ("Any issue not raised in the assignments oferror shall be deemed to be conceded."); c[ Lloyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-60, at *7 n.3 (deeming similarly conceded any sec. 6751(b)(1) challenge to assessable penalties in a sec. 6330 levy case). - 16 - and acted in good faith depends upon the pertinent facts and circumstances ofa particular case. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. As previously discussed, petitioners kept adequate records to substantiate the legal fe

Section 6330 Section 6331(d) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayerwritten notice of the Secretary's intent to levy, and section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayerwritten notice ofhis right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy. Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 307 (2005), M, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 200

6320(c) provides that "[f]or purposes ofthis section, subsection[] * * * (e) * * * ofsection 6330 shall apply." Thus, the following discussion ofsec.

Petitioners acknowledged receiving the Notices CP 49, and on June 25, 2013, they mailed a letter (rather than Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing)) to the IRS in which they challenged: (1) The application ofwithheld tax returns [sic].

Each ofthe notices ofdetermination included an attachment that stated in perti- nent part: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing with Appeals under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330 following receipt ofthe Final Notice, Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing.

2017-60, at *7 n.3 (deeming similarly conceded any section 6751(b)(1) challenge to assessable penalties in a section 6330 levy case).

Section 6330 Hearing At least 30 days before making a levy, the Commissioner must give notice to the taxpayer ofthe proposed levy and ofthe taxpayer's right to a CDP hearing to appeal it. Secs. 6330(a), 6331(d). A taxpayermay appeal the proposed levy to the IRS under section 6330 by timely requesting a CDP hearing. See sec. 6330(b)(1). The CDP hear

6320(c) provides that "[f]or purposes ofthis section, subsection[] * * * (e) * * * ofsection 6330 shall apply." Thus, the following discussion ofsec.

ise declined to offer or agree to a collection alternative, the Appeals Office issued a notice ofdetermination to petitioner sustaining the proposed levy action. Petitioner invoked the Court'sjurisdiction by filing a timely petition for review under section 6330. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in the State ofWashington. Discussion I. Summary Judgment Summaryjudgment may be granted with respect to all or any part ofthe legal issues in controversy "ifthe pleadings, answers

Petitioners acknowledged receiving the Notices CP 49, and on June 25, 2013, they mailed a letter (rather than Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing)) to the IRS in which they challenged: (1) The application ofwithheld tax returns [sic].

During a telephone hearing the settlement officer advised petitioner that even though he had not been permitted to contest the underlying TFRP liabilities because his protest was one day late, he had had a prior opportunity for a hearing, thereby precluding him from contesting the liabilities at the section 6330 CDP hearing.

fIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing in respect ofhis unpaid tax liability for 2011 and the section 6694(a) penalties. On August 4, 2014, petitioner submitted to the Appeals Office a timely request for an administrative hearing under section 6330. Petitioner's hearing request stated in relevant part: "I was - 4 - advised by IRS taxpayer advocate that my 2007 amended return was being processed and I believe that the amount ofthe levy should be reduced as a result." On August 12, 2

We may then seize ('levy') or take possession ofyour other property or your rights to property." On July 24, 2012, in response to the levy notice, petitioner sent to respondent a letter (July 24 letter) requesting a collection due process (section 6330) hearing and challenging her liability for the penalty.

Section 6320(b)(3) provides that "[a] hearing under this subsection shall be conducted by an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) before the first hearing under this section or section 6330." The settlement officer had no prior involvement in petitioner's tax matters for the tax periods at issue.

In a section 6330 proceeding, we do not normally conduct an independent review ofwhether an OIC is acceptable. Rather, our review is generally limited to determining whether the Appeals officer's rejection ofthe taxpayer's OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), affd, 469 F.

Appeals. M secs. 6320(a) and (b) (relating to liens), 6330(a) and (b) (relating to levies). Where a hearing is requested, whether in response to an NFTL filing or a proposed levy, the presiding Appeals officer must satisfy the standards set forth in section 6330. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c). Specifically, as part ofthe CDP hearing, the Appeals officer must take into consideration: (1) verification that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure have been met; (2) relevant issu

On September 19, 2013, the Archers timely filed respective Forms 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing).

On September 19, 2013, the Archers timely filed respective Forms 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing).

On June 12, 2014, petitioner submitted an amended Form 12153 to the IRS Office ofAppeals on which he challenged both the notice ofFederal tax lien and the notice ofintent to levy, again asserting he had never received the notices ofdeficiency, and requested a face-to-face section 6330 hearing.

Appeals. M secs. 6320(a) and (b) (relating to liens), 6330(a) and (b) (relating to levies). Where a hearing is requested, whether in response to an NFTL filing or a proposed levy, the presiding Appeals officer must satisfy the standards set forth in section 6330. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c). Specifically, as part ofthe CDP hearing, the Appeals officer must take into consideration: (1) verification that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure have been met; (2) relevant issu

Absent sufficient evidence that a taxpayerdeliberately refused delivery ofthe notice ofdeficiency, proofthat the notice ofdeficiency was not actually received will be sufficient to entitle a taxpayerto dispute the underlying liability in a section 6330 proceeding.

107, 114 (2007) ("[I]ssues under section 6330 must have been raised properly when the Appeals officer made her determination before we can review those issues in the context ofan appeal ofthat determination.").

6502), or on a refund claim (generally 3 years after he or she has filed the 8The Internal Revenue Service has defined "collection activities" as the issuance of"a section 6330 notice; an offset ofan overpayment ofthe requesting spouse against a liability under section 6402; the filing ofa suit by the United States against the requesting spouse for the collection ofthejoint tax liability; or the filing ofa claim by the United States in a court proceeding in which the requesting spouse is a party

Appeals. M secs. 6320(a) and (b) (relating to liens), 6330(a) and (b) (relating to levies). Where a hearing is requested, whether in response to an NFTL filing or a proposed levy, the presiding Appeals officer must satisfy the standards set forth in section 6330. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c). Specifically, as part ofthe CDP hearing, the Appeals officer must take into consideration: (1) verification that the requirements ofapplicable law and administrative procedure have been met; (2) relevant issu

their tax obligations. - 12 - [*12] B. Face-to-Face Hearing Petitioners also argue that the settlement officer abused her discretion by not granting petitioners' request for a face-to-face hearing. A face-to-face hearing is not a requirement under section 6330. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000) (holding that a hearing by telephone or by correspondence is sufficient to satisfy the requirements under section 6330); secs. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Q&A-D7, 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A

After reviewing thejurisdictional requirements and the wording ofsection 6330, we held that the notice as originally mailed was invalid because it was not mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address.

Administrative Hearings Under Section 6330 and Judicial Review Section 6331(a) authorizes the Commissionerto levy upon property and rights to property ofa taxpayerwho is liable for taxes and who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after notice and demand for payment is made.

MEMORANDUM OPINION SWIFT, Judge: This proceeding was commenced in response to a notice of determination concerning a proposed levy under section 6330 with respect to assessed Federal income tax for 2004 and 2006.

We have held that our jurisdiction under section 6330 includes the review ofthe Commissioner's determination regarding the collection action with respect to section 6702 frivolous return penalty by NFTL or levy.

107, 112-113 (2007) ("[Section 6330] contemplates consideration ofissues 'raised' by the taxpayer at the hearing.

Timely Petition In a collection review action involving a proposed levy, this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330 depends on the issuance ofa notice of determination by the Internal Revenue Service Office ofAppeals and the filing by the taxpayer ofa timely petition.

Application ofOverpayments In a case brought under section 6330, a court-determined overpayment or credit from a year not subject to the collection action may be an "available" credit that can be taken into account under section 6330(c)(2) (A) to determine whether the liability at issue remains unpaid and whetherthe IRS can proceed with collection.

In reviewing for abuse of discretion, generally we consider only arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the section 6330 hearing or otherwise communicated to the Appeals Office.

1, 12 (2006) (holding that the Court lacksjurisdiction under section 6330 for a claim for refund when the tax liabilities have been satisfied).

002.2 2The Court'sjurisdiction in this case is limited to a review ofthe 2011 lien action. See sec. 6331(d)(1). To the extent that petitioner seeks to challenge the 2002 levy action, he must pursue that matter in a separate petition for review under sec. 6330 or possibly in a suit for a refund. -4- [*4] Discussion Section 6201(a)(1) provides in relevant part that the Secretary is authorized and required to assess all taxes determined by a taxpayeror the Secretary on tax returns made in accordanc

Application ofOverpayments In a case brought under section 6330, a court-determined overpayment or credit from a year not subject to the collection action may be an "available" credit that can be taken into account under section 6330(c)(2) (A) to determine whether the liability at issue remains unpaid and whetherthe IRS can proceed with collection.

Section 6330 Hearing Under section 6331(a), the Secretary may levy upon property and property rights ofa taxpayer liable for tax ifthe taxpayer fails to pay the tax within 10 days after notice and demand for payment. Section 6330(a) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofany person unless the Secretary has notified

Notice ofDetermination On June 20, 2012, respondent issued a Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6330, sustaining the proposed levy on the ground that the estate "had failed to provide us with a collection alternative that will satisfy the estate tax liability." SO Owyang's Appeals case memorandum, 8Mr.

35, 41 (2000) ("The references in section 6330 to a hearing by Appeals indicate that Congress contemplated the type ofinformal administrative Appeals hearing that has been historically conducted by Appeals and prescribed by section 601.106(c), Statement ofProcedural Rules.").

Section 6331(d) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayerwritten notice ofthe Secretary's intent to levy, and section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayerwritten notice ofhis right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy.

For tax years 2002 and 2003, petitioner - 6 - [*6] received a notice ofintent to levy; and, because his request for a section 6330 hearing was not timely, he received an equivalent hearing during which he had the opportunity to challenge the underlying tax liabilities for those years.

with notice under section 6320 ofthe NFTL filing and cannot proceed with any collection activity until the taxpayerhas been given the opportunity for an administrative review in the form ofa CDP hearing or an equivalent hearing. Sec. 6320; see also sec. 6330; Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000) (discussing the requirements ofsection 6330); Cunningham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-200, at *10 (the procedures with respect to an NFTL CDP hearing are the same as those for a CDP hearing

Kakeh "has experienced a material change in circum- stances between the time ofthe section 6330 hearing and the trial that affects the RCP calculation." See Gurule v.

- 4 - [*4] Notice ofIntent To Levy and Section 6330 Hearing On the basis ofour decision in docketNo.

Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to a notice oflevy pursuantto section 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee of Appeals.

2002 against petitioner's unpaid tax liability for 2008. IV. Collection Activity for 2006 and 2008 On September 3, 2010, respondent sent to petitioner a Final Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing for 2006 and 2008 pursuantto section 6330. The notice informed petitioner that he owed $76 for 2006 (comprising accrued interest of$48 and a late payment addition to tax of$28)3 and 3The amount due for 2006 represents the sum ofadditional interest and a late payment addition to

It is well settled that a - 18 - [*18] taxpayer is entitled to a single hearing under section 6330 with respect to the year to which the unpaid liability relates.

Section 6330 Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights ofa taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made. Section 6331(d) provides that the levy authorized in section 6331(a) may be made with respect to unpaid tax only if the Secretary has

e 2010- 33, supra, lists positions that the IRS has identified as "frivolous" for purposes of the section 6702 penalty for making "frivolous tax submissions." This Notice explicitly characterizes as "frivolous" the submissionthat: Verification under section 6330 that the requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met may only be based on one or more particular forms or documents (which must be in a certain format), such as a summaryrecord ofassessment, or that the pa

Collection reviewprocedure Section 6330 generally provides that taxpayers are entitled to administrative andjudicial review before the Commissionermay collect unpaid tax by way ofa levy on the taxpayer's property.

When we remand a case to Appeals, "the furtherhearing is a supplement to the taxpayer's original section 6330 hearing, [and] not a new (continued...) -7- [*7] Accordingly, we will remand this matter to Appeals to consider petitioner's August 31 OIC as a collection alternative and to state Appeals' findings and decision.

o dispute her tax liabilities because the Commissioner didn't send her notices ofdeficiency; (cid:16)042the revenue officer didn't meet the requirements ofall applicable law and administrative procedure, and the collection action was intrusive under section 6330; (cid:16)042the Commissioner didn't send her CDP notice or copies ofthe NFTLs; and (cid:16)042the civil penalty for 2003 wasn't applicable because she had begun a case that was still pending.

Respondent issued a Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action under Section 6330 on October 3, 2012, characterizing the doubts about disclosure as "inconsistent fmancial information" and sustaining the - 8 - [*8] proposed levy.

That notice informed petitioners that ifthey so desired, they could have a hearing (section 6330 hearing) on the matter by contacting the IRS Office of Appeals.

We have held that ourjurisdiction under section 6330 includes the review ofthe Commissioner's determination to collect a section 6702 frivolous return penalty by levy.

"equivalent hearing" was a determination conferringjurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1)); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 164 (2001) (holding that a written _ 9 _ notice to proceed with a collection action constituted a determinationunder section 6330). The 2013 letter contained a statement on the merits ofpetitioners' whistleblower claim, referred for the first time in a letter to claimants to a "determination" made on that claim, and did not indicate that further administrativeprocedu

ary 22, 2008, through March 16, 2009. In any event, in determining whether respondent's settlement officer's determination constitutes an abuse ofdiscretion, we generally consider only the arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the sec. 6330 hearing or otherwise brought to the attention ofthe settlement officer. See A-Valley Eng'rs, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-199 (citing Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007)). And in this regard, petitioner did not seek

In rendering an administrative determination in a collection review proceeding under section 6330, the Appeals Office must verify that the requirements ofany applicable law and administrative procedure have been met in processing the taxpayer's case.

Specified submissions include requests for a hearing under section 6320 (notice and opportunity for hearing upon filing ofnotice oflien) and under section 6330 (notice and opportunity for hearing before levy).

Determination To Sustain Proposed Levy Action Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in response to a notice oflevy pursuantto section 6330, a hearing shall be held before an impartial officer or employee of Appeals.

Administrative Hearings Under Section 6330 and Judicial Review Section 6331(a) authorizes the Commissionerto levy on property and rights to property ofa taxpayerwho is liable for taxes and who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after notice and demand for payment is made.

Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Courtjurisdiction to review an Appeals officer's determinations in connection with a section 6330 hearing.

UnderlyingLiability Section 6330, which governs CDP hearings, permits a taxpayerto raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed collection method.¹8 Ifthe taxpayer seeks Tax Court review ofthe notice ofdetermination, the Court can consider only an issue that was properly raised in the CDP hearing.¹9 An issue will not be considered properly raise

142 T.C. No. 14 UNITED STATES TAX COURT BRUCE M. KRAFT, Petitionerv. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3602-12L. Filed April 23, 2014. P filed a petition for review pursuant to I.R.C. sec. 6330 in response to R's determinationto proceed with collection by means of levy. P sought a collection alternative and requested that R invade Trust (T) in order to satisfy P's income tax liability. P contends that for R to collect from him personallythe levy would have to be continuing

axpayerin writing upon the filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien and to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Ifan administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conducted by Appeals. Sec..6320(b)(1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it must verify that the requirements,0fany applicable law or administrati

Reliefunder IRC § 6330 from the collectionaction proposed for your 2004 liability is granted.

axpayer. After receiving such notice, the taxpayermay request an administrative hearing before the Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(a)(3)(B). A CDP hearing concerning a lien under section 6320 is to be conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). We have jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) to reviewthe Commissioner's determination - 7 - that the NFTL was proper and that the Commissionermay proceed to collect by it.4 In reviewing the Commissioner's decision to sus

On October 19, 2011, respondent received a completed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing), from petitioner.

Administrative Hearings Under Section 6330 and Judicial Review Section 6331(a) authorizes the Commissionerto levy upon property and rights to property ofa taxpayerwho is liable for taxes and who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after notice and demand for payment is made.

6702 for each o the sixtax years at issue and sent petitioner a notice ofbalance due for 2005-10.· Having received no payment, respondent on April 2, 2012, issued petitioner a Final Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing under Section 6330. By letter dated May 1, 2012, petitioner requested a CDP hearing. By letter dated June 1, 2012, a settlement officer (SO) from respondent's Appeals Office acknowledged petitioner's hearing request and scheduled a telephone CDP hearing fo

sionerto notify a taxpayer in writing upon the filing ofan NFTL and to provide the taxpayerwith an opportunity for an administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). - 16 - [*16] Ifan administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conducted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office ofAppeals. Sec. 6320(b)(1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it must verify t

Petitioner's Challenge to Underlying Liabilities Section 6330(a)(1) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofany taxpayerunless the Commissionerhas notified such - 7 - [*7] taxpayer in writing ofthe right to a hearing under section 6330 before such levy is made.

6330(c)(2)(A).8 In 7 In 1998, Congress enacted section 6330 to give taxpayers this opportunity to seek additional protections from unreasonable tax collection.

Section 6330(a)(1) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofany taxpayer unless the Commissioner has notified such taxpayer in writing ofthe right to a hearing under - 8 - [*8] section 6330 before such levy is made.

Petitioner timely requested a section 6330 hearing.

b) provides that a taxpayer shall be notified in writing by the Commissioner ofthe filing ofan NFTL and provided an opportunity for an administrative hearing. A hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Ifa taxpayer requests a hearing in a lien case, the hearing is to be conducted by the Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(b)(1). At the hearing the SO must verify that the requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedur

w SEC 140 T.C. No. 4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT GEORGE THOMPSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONEROF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 10897-09L. Filed March 4, 2013. P filed a petition for review pursuantto I.R.C. sec. 6330 in response to R's determination to proceed with collection. P sought a collection alternative ofa partial payment installment agreement with a monthly payment of$3,000. The Internal Revenue Manual provides guidance for determining how much a taxpayer should be able to pay in a

axpayerin writing upon the filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien and to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Ifan administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conducted by Appeals. Sec..6320(b)(1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it must verify that the requirements,0fany applicable law or administrati

etitioner sought for the first time to raise factual disputes about the information reports upon which respondent's determinations are based. His 3The pe ition also invokes a number ofother Code sections that are not germane to thi proceeding; e.g., sec. 6330, which pertains to collection proceedings; sec. 6703(a), relating to penalties under secs. 6700, 6701, and 6702 that are not at issue in this proceeding; and sec. 6511(a), relating to the period of limitation on filing refund claims. - 7 -

And section 6330 does not amplify the receipt requirement. Section 301.6330- 1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., however, states that, for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B), "Receipt ofa statutorynotice ofdeficiency * * * means receipt in time to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination ofthe deficiency determined in the notice ofdeficiency."

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced under section 6330 in response to a notice ofdetermination concerning collection action sustaining a Federal tax lien with respect to petitioner's unpaid income tax liabilities for 2001, 2003, 2004, !

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send written notice to the - 7 - taxpayer ofthe taxpayer's right to request a section 6330 collection due process (CDP) hearing before a levy is made.

On June 2, 2011, respondentmailed to.petitioner three:separate Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 (notices of determination).

ed her request for a face-to-face hearing. Respondent contends that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion because petitioner failed to provide the requested necessary financial information.: A face-to-face hearing is not required under section 6330. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 337-338 (a proper section 6330 hearing may occur by telephone conference); Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17, 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16, at *11. We have decided that it is not an abuse

On August 31, 2009, petitioner signed and dated a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (section 6330 hearing).

reliefunder section 6015(b) or (c) must submit a claim for reliefwithin two years ofthe date on which the Secretary begins collection activities svith respect to such spouse. See sec. 6015(b)(1)(E), - 8 - (c)(3)(B). A collection activity includes a section 6330 notice. Sec. 1.6015- 5(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs. A section 6330 notice refers to the notice sent pursuantto section 6330, providing taxpayers with notice ofthe IRS' intentto levy and oftheir right to a collection due process hearing. Sec

13619-07L: DECISION Pursuant to the agreement ofthe parties in this case, it is ORDERED AND DECIDED: That the determinations set forth in the Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action(s) under section 6320 and/or section 6330 issued to petitioner on May 15, 2007, regarding petitioner's liability for penalties under I.R.C.

Section 6330 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review ofthe matter (in the form ofa hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec. 6330(a) and (b). Ifthe taxpayerrequests such a hearing, the Appeals Office must verify that the requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. Sec. 6330(c)(1).

In reviewing for abuse ofdiscretion under section 6330(d)(1), generally we consider only arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the section 6330 hearing or otherwise brought to the attentionofAppeals.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection oftaxes by way ofa levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice ofand the opportunity for an administrative review ofthe matter and, ifdissatisfied, withjudicial review ofthe administrative determination. Sego v. Commissioner, 1.14 T.C

Discussion Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way ofa levy until the taxpayerhas been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review ofthe matter (in the form ofan Appeals Office hearing) and that, ifdissatisfied, the person may obtainjudicial review of the administrative determination.

ed in writing by the Commissioner äfthe filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an ädministrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 63 0(::). - 9 - Ifan administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conductedby the Appeals Office. Secs. 6320(b)(1), 6330(b)(1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it mustverify thatthe requirements ofany app

axpayer shall be notified in writing by the Commissioner ofthe filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien and provided an opportunity for an administrative hearing. A hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in a lien case, the hearing is to be conducted by the Commissioner's Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(b)(1). At the hearing the Appeals officer must verify that the requirements ofany applicable law

Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Courtjurisdiction to reviewthe determination made by the Appeals O fice in connectionwith the section 6330 hearing.

nt document signed by an assessment officer exists. - 5Respondent also assessed a sec. 6702(a) civil penalty against Mr. O'Brien and filed a notice ofintent to levy with respect to Mr. O'Brien's sec. 6702(a) penalty. Mr. O'Brien untimely requested a sec. 6330 hearing. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office ofAppeals (Appeals Office) conducted an equivalent hearing and subsequently issued to Mr. O'Brien a Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. Petitioner

T.C. Memo. 2012-262 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PETER KURETSKI AND KATHLEEN KURETSKI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONEROF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18545-10L. Filed September 11, 2012. Ps filed a petition for reviewpursuant to I.R.C. sec. 6330 in response to R's determination that the levy action was appropriate and that abatement ofadditions to tax under I.R.C. secs. 6651(a)(2) and 6654(a) should be denied. - Held: R's detennination to proceed with collection action is sustained except to t

pondent to apply the.designatedtax payments properly, respondent failed to act to corréct the inisapplication, and consequently, - 16 - [*16] respondent forced petitionerto seek correction.ofthe misapplication by participating in a proceeding under section 6330. The record shows petitioner contacted respondent's Collection Division only after he received notice and demand for payment. The record also shows that petitioner was unable to resolve his dispute with the Collection Division timely and

as inconsistent with the stipulated exhibit in the record. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989). 3At some point before levying on petitioners' bank accounts, respondent apparently issued a notice ofintent to levy under sec. 6330. Upon receiving that notice, petitioners timely requested a sec. 6330 hearing, on a Form 12153 dated February 21, 2008, proposing an installment agreement as a collection alternative for tax years 2002-05. Sometime before December 1, 2008,

04-203. IV. Face-to-Face Hearing Request Petitioner appears to argue in the petition that Ms. O'Neal abused her discretion by denying him a face-to-face hearing. This Court and other courts have held that a face-to-face hearing is not required under section 6330. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000); Williamson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-188; Stockton v. Commissióner, T.C. Memo. 2009-186; Leineweberv. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-117. We have also held that an Appeals officer's denia

Section 6330(a)(1) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property ofany person unless the Commissioner has notified such person in writing ofthe right to a hearing under section 6330 before such levy is made.

In response, petitioner sent a letterto respondent requesting that the confererice be held by correspondence, informing respondent that he intended to challenge the appropriateness ofthe collection action, and arguing that administrative procedures had not been met pursuantto section 6330 (c)(1) and (e)(1).

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced under section 6330 in response to a notice ofdetermination concerning collection actions with respect to petitioners' unpaid income tax liabilities for 2002 and 2003 and Booker T.

For the Tax Court to havejurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330, a taxpayer must petition the Court within 30 days ofthe determination following a section 6330 hearing.

Section 6330(d)(1) grants this courtjurisdiction to review the determination made by the Appeals Office in connection with the section 6330 hearing.

-5- Discussion We begin by noting that the evidence demonstrates respondent's compliance with his obligations under the relevant provisions ofsection 6320 and/or section 6330, and but for petitioner's challenge to the underlying liabilities, petitioner does not claim otherwise.

Ifthe taxpayerrequests a section 6330 hearing, the hearing is conducted by the Appeals Office.

priate to sustain the lien and levy; and on April 19, 2011, respondent's Appeals Office mailed petitioners a Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and a Notice ofDetermination Concerning Collection.Action(s) Under Section 6330. Respondent concedes that petitioners' carryback with respect to their claimed theft loss during 2006 was within the scope ofthe Appeals hearing and . should have been considered by Ms. Amper. However, respondent's motion indicates that

xpayer. After receiving such notice, the taxpayermayrequest an administrative hearing before the Office ofAppeals. Sec. 6320(a)(3)(B). A CDP hearing concerning a lien under section 6320 is to be conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Atthe CDP hearing a taxpayermay raise any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or proposed levy, including spousal defenses, challenges to the - 8 - appropriateness ofthe collection actions, and offers ofcollection a

His only dispute with respondent's detÄÈmination concerns the liability. All reasonable'and ordinary expenses ihÈurred during a taxable year for the production of income are deductible. Sec. 212. However, any such deductible expense must be substantiated by adequate records. Sec. 60Ól. Certain expenses can be deducted onlÝ if

axpayer shall be notified in writing by the Commissioner ofthe filing ofa notice ofFederal tax lien and provided an opportunity for an administrative hearing. A hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements ofsection 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Ifa taxpayerrequests a hearing in a lien case, the hearing is to be conducted by the Commissioner's Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(b)(1). At the hearing the Appeals officer must verify that the requirements ofany applicable law

Discussion W have juri'sdiction under section 6330 (d) (1) to -review respondent' s determination that the notice of intent to levy was proper and that respondent me y proceed to collect by levy.3 In srev ewing the Commissione ' s decision to sustain collections actionå, where the validity È>f- the underlying tax liability is a 'll proper]iy at issue, .the Court reviews the Commissione

Division. - 6 - The :second topic of the correspondence was Session's request that Lee identify the issues he wished to raise at the hearing. In response to this request, Lee stated that he would raise- all issues that a taxpayer could raise under section 6330. However, Lee stated that he would not raise these issues until the face- to-face meeting. The third topic of the correspondence was Session's request for documents in advance of the face-to-face meeting. Sessions requested that Lee fill

Section 6330 (a) (1) provides that a person who receives a notice of an impending IRS levy is entitled to request a "hearing".

in writing by the Commissioner of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 6320.(c). If an administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conducted by the_ Appeals Office. Secs. 6320(b) (1), 6330(b) (1). At the hearing) the Appeals officer condtcting it must verify that the requirements of any

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant t·o section 6330 (d) ,1 petitioner has petitioned for a revièw of respondent' s deteräinations (1) to file a notice of Federal tax 1 en (NFTL) with rpspect to petitióner's unpaid Federal income tax liability for 1993 and (2) Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) , as amended; and all Rule- references

ection alternatives. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). The taxpayer is expected to provide all~relevant information "The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330(d) and granted this Court jurisdiction over all sec. 6330 determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006. Perkins v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007). - 4 - requested by the Appeals Office, including financial statements, for consideration of the facts and issues involved in the CDP hearing.. Sec.

Sec 6330 (d) (1) ; Offiler v. Commissioner, 1143 T.C. 492., 498 (2000) From a jurisd ct ional erspective, the ppeals Office determination "provided for in section 56330 is the equivalent of a noticò of deficiency." Offiler v Comnii'ssiorier, supra at 49 . The Tax Court''s'jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid noEice of determination and

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner may not proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given written notice and an opportunity for a hearing with an impartial Appeals officer. See sec. 6330(a) and (b); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 -7- (2000). Following the CDP hearing Appeals must issue a notice of dete

BRIEF BACKGROUND You filed a request for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under Internal Revenue Code .§ 6330 following receipt of a LT11/1058 Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: This is a section 6330 (d)1 appeal from respondent's determinations to uphold the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien and to collect by levy Pacific West Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period.

"The * * * levy does not determine whether the government's rights to the seized property are superior to those - 10 - the IRS -can.levy on property, it must first offer the taxpayer a section 6330 hearing.

We begin by noting that we have jurisdiction to review a determination notice issued under section 6330 where the underlying tax liability consists of frivolous return penalties.

Upon a timely request, the taxpayer is entitled to an administrative hearing before an impart tal officer or employee of the Appeals Office. Sec. 6330 (b) . Following the hearing, the' Appeals officer must deter nine whether the collection action iá to proceed, taking into account the verification-the Appeals officer has made, the i

6330 (a) (3) (B) . At the hearing -the person may raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, and offers of- collection alternatives. Sec. 6330 (c) (2) (A) . Section 6330 (c) (2) (B) further provides that the person m

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner may not proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given written notice and an opportunity for a hearing with an impartial Appeals officer. See sec. 6330(a) and (b); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000). Following the CDP hearing Appeals must issue a notice of . 7- det

Standard of Review Section 6330 forbids the IRS to levy until the IRS-notifies the taxpayer of the taxpayer's right to a pre-levy hearing with the Appeals Office.

Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner may not proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given written notice and an opportunity for a hearing with an impartial Appeals officer. See sec. 6330(a) and (b); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000). Following the CDP hearing Appeals must issue a notice of determina

6330; see Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000) ; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000) . If an administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be. conducted by respondent's Appeals Office, and, at the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative pr

r, 131 T.C. 1, 5 4Proceedings in the Tax Court are generally governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule.143(a). - 9 - (2008), affd. 325 Fed. Appx. 448 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Kelby v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 79, 86 (2008) (similar holding for section 6330 cases). When this Court remands a case to the Appeals Office, the hearing on remand is a supplement to the taxpayer's original section 6320 hearing. Kelby v. Commissioner, supra at 86; see also Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 155 (1

ommissioner, supra. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof because he.merely recited the frivolous arguments which he asserted 'at the CDP hearing. We find that Appeals' settlement officer fully complied with his obligations to petitioner under section 6330. He verified that all of the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met and that the proposed levy action appropriately balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's concerns that the

Dickerson did not engage "in the 'thorough' review and analysis of petitioner's financial statements * * * required by section 6330" and therefore did not discover "that petitioner has the ability [to] pay approximately $1350 monthly" to satisfy "in a timel and reasonable manner" petitioner's liabilities.

in writing by the Commissioner of the f ling of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportupity for an administrative hearing. An administrative heari g under section 6320 is conducted in accordânce with the{procedural requirements of section 6330.' Sec. 6320(c). If an administrative hèaring is req'uested in a lien or levy case, the hearing is to be conducted by the Appe ls Office. Secs. 6320(b) (1), 6330(b) (1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it must verify that th

On June 25, 2009, the Appeals Office made a collection determination under section 6330 ERVED FEB -2 2011 [|1| 1 - 2 - of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

6330 (c) (2) (B) . Where the taxpayer has received a notice of deficiency, the taxpayer must file a petition for redetermination of the notice of deficiency within. 90 days of the date such notice was mailed. Sec.. 6213 (a) .1 Petitioners were issued as notice of deficiency on December 5, 2005. Petitioners do not assert that they did not rece

rovides that a taxpayer shall be notified in writing by the Commissioner of the filing of an NFTL and provided an opportunity for an administrative hearing. A hearing under section.6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec.-6320(c). If a taxpayEr requests a hearing in a lien case, the hearing is to be conducted by the Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(b) (1)-. At the hearing the O must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative proced

6330, I.R.C., CDP case, R determined to collect P's unpaid tax for 2005 by levy. P claims that he should be given credit for overpayments that he made for prior tax years that would extinguish his 2005 liability. P had previously filed claims for refund for the prior years that R disallowed, and P failed to file suit for refund or credit withi

137 T.C. No. 9 UNITED STATES TAX COURT KREIT MECHANICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. , Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14692-09L. - Filed October 3, 2011. P filed a petition for review pursuaËt to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to R's determination to proceed with collection actions . P sought a collection alternative and submitted an offer-in-compromise. R rejedted the offer, concluding that the entire amount due was collectible after R found that a 75-percent discount

82 (2000). The Court reviews any other administrative determination regarding proposed collection actions for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 2The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019, amended sec. 6330.(d) and granted ,this Court jurisdiction over all sec. 6330 determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006. Perkins v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 58, 63 n.7 (2007). 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182. Na abuse of.discretion occurs when the exerci

n five days after the date of its filing. Section 6320(b) provides the person with an opportunity for a hearing before the IRS Appeals Office. The hearing is conducted pursuant to subsections- (c), (d) (other than paragraph (2) (]B)) (e), and (g) of section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). At the hearing, the taxpayer may raise any issues relevant to the unpaid tax including: (1) challenges to the appbopriatenéss od the IRS's collection actions; and (2) offers of collection alternatives (e.g., an installment

MEMORANDUM OPI ION SWIFT, Judge: In this collection case under section 6330 petitioner challenges respondent's notice of intent to levy relating to $2,623 in outstanding Fede::al employment taxes, penalties, and interest petitioner owen in connection with her restaurant and catering business.

The hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with procedures set forth in section 6330 (c), (d), (e), and (g).

vides that the levy authorized in section 63311(-a) may be made wieth respect to unpaid 1) tax liability only if the Commissioner has given swritten notice to the taxpayer 30adays before the-levy.- Section 6330(a) requïres the Commiss.ioner to send a written notice to the tãxpayer of the amount of ther unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's wri'ght to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the fikst levy is made.

2006-178; see also Lance v.

ommissioner, supra. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof because he.merely recited the frivolous arguments which he asserted 'at the CDP hearing. We find that Appeals' settlement officer fully complied with his obligations to petitioner under section 6330. He verified that all of the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met and that the proposed levy action appropriately balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's concerns that the

Underlying Tax Liability Petitioners did not receive a notice of deficiency for the years at issue and had no prior opportunity to raise the issue of the existence or amounts of the underlying tax liabilities before the CDP hearing. Section 6330(c) (2) (B) provides that the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability can

Respondent's Proposed Collection Actions Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form,of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, the taxpayer may seek judicial review of the administrative determination.

Generally, the Court will consider only arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the section 6330 hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the Appeals Office.

Orian is precluded from contesting his underlying liability under section 6330 (c) (2) (B) ; (2) whether petitioners' challenge to application of payments for the 2005 tax year constitutes an impermissible challenge; IUnless otherwise indicated; all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

490, 494-95 (1992) and Internal Revenue Code section 6330, to look beyond the record and take their promise into consideration.

When she requested a hearing under section 6330, petitioner might have offered collection alternatives, including the installment arrangement suggested by the Appeals officer or an offer-in-compromise .

This Court and other courts have held that a face-to-face(cid:127)CDP hearing is not required under section 6330 in all circumstances .

After receiving such notice, the taxpayer .may request an administrative hearing before the Office of Appeals. Sec 6320 (a) (3) (B) . A CDP hearing concerningsa lien under section 6320;is to be conducted intaccordance with the relevant provisions of section 6330. Sec. 26320 (c) . We have jurisdiction under section 36330 (d) (1) to review the Commissioner's determination that the NFTL was proper and that the Commissioner may-proceed to collect by it.2 In reviewing the Commissioner's decision to's

RTHUR DALTON, JR. AND BEVERLY DALTON, -Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEINUE, Respondent* Docket No. 23510-06L. Filed September 23', 2010. R seeks to collect certain trust fund recovery penalties from Ps.- In'R's determination pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., R rejected Ps' offer-in-compromise. Ps transferred property to P husband's father F, who in turn transferred the property to 3 trust-11 years before trust fund recovery penalt es arose. The trust was set up to hold the property får

Petitioner requested a hearing under section 6330, asserting that he disagreed with the amount of tai due .

This Court has interpreted "underlying tax liability' in section 6330 to include any amounts owed by the.

The hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with .procedures set forth in section 6330 (c), (d), (e), and (g) .

6330 hearing) and informed the Appeals Office that he would'be audio recording the section 6330 hearing .

Jurisdiction Section 6330 ( d)(1) provides this Court with jurisdiction to review an .appeal from the Commissioner ' s determination to proceed with collection activity regardless of the type of underlying tax involved .

sideration is whether petitioner's request for relief under section 6015(f) is time- barred because it was filed more than 2 years (approximately 4 years) after respondent mailed petitioner a notice of determination to proceed with collection under section 6330 . Respondent concedes that petitioner otherwise meets the qualifications for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) . The sole reason for . respondent's denial of . relief is that petitioner's request for relief was

INDINGS OF FACT' When she filed the petition, petitioner resided in Utah. Respondent notified petitioner of his intent to collect petitioner's'liabilities by'levy,-and, in response thereto, petitioner requested a pre-levy hearing with Appeals under section 6330 . During that hearing, petitioner argued that she had'paid the liabilities by means of the note, which-she had sent to the IRS . Respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals) team manager Sharon Patterson (Ms . Patterson) rejected petitioner's cl

d on Jan. 14, 2009, and the Court denied petitioner's motion to restrain assessment and collection on Mar. 19, 2009, pursuant to Zigmont v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-48. - 10 - 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property or property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made. Section 6331(d) pro

Although they did not pursue the reasonable cause defense at their section 6330 hearing, they raise it anew in this proceeding." SPetitioners claim that they did not have enough time to raise their reasonable cause defense before Appeals because respondent prematurely issued the notices of determination.

Generally, as described under section a 6330(c)(2), failure of the taxpayer to raise an issue during the section 6330 hearing will preclude our consideration of that issue .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced under section 6330 in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action sustaining a lien to secure petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2004 and 20Ó6.

Commissioner, supra, the scope of our 6 - jurisdiction is defined by section 6330 and the notice of determination .

We have jurisdiction to review the determination under section 6330 (d) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Their claimed financial hardship can be raised in a proceeding commenced under section 6330 only if and when collection efforts are made and a notice of determination sustaining collection efforts is sent to them.

Sec . 301 .6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin . Regs . ; see Katz v . Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000) ; Dining v . Commissioner, T.C. Memo . 2009-284 . This Court and other courts have held that a face-to-face CDP hearing is not required under section 6330 . Katz v . Commissioner, supra (telephone conference procedurally proper) ; Williamson v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2009-188 (taxpayer not entitled to face-to-face hearing after asserting only meritless arguments) ; Stockton v. Commis

On January 14, 2009, respondent's Appeals Office issued a Supplemental Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6330 (supplemental notice of determination) sustaining the proposed levy .

Discussion We have jurisdiction under section 6330 ( d)(1) to review respondent' s determination that the notice of intent to levy was proper and that respondent may proceed to collect by levy .

MEMORANDUM OPINION MORRISON, Judge : This case arises from a petition filed by Perry and Gladys Westcot`t in response to the IRS's "Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under Section 632 0 F EIWED FEB 2 3 2010 a 2 and/or Section 6330 ."' We decide that the IRS did not abuse its discretion in making the determinations reflected in the notice .

Petitioner requested a collection due .process (CDP) hearing under section 6330, and a notice of determination sustaining the proposed collection action was ultimately sent to petitioner .

Orian is precluded from contesting his underlying liability under section 6330 (c) (2) (B) ; (2) whether petitioners' challenge to application of payments for the 2005 tax year constitutes an impermissible challenge; IUnless otherwise indicated; all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

ND ESTATE OF DOYLE V . MAT: IA, DECEASED, JEAN MATHIA, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 16483-05L . (Filed May 27, 2009 . Ann L . Darnold, for respondent . MARVEL, Judge: Pursuant- to section. 6330 (d) ;' petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with the collection of petitioners' 1982, 1983, and 1984 Federal income 'Unless otherwise indicated, all ection references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all

The taxpayer may then;,' -7- request an administrative hearing to be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330 ( c), (d), and (e ) .

The Commissioner agrees , arguing that "the very structure of section 6330 reinforces the distinction between liability and payment of unpaid tax ." The Commissioner points out that section 6330(c)(2)(A) starts by saying, "the [taxpayer] may raise at th e hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax .

Petitioners made a timely request for an Appeals Office administrative hearing (section 6330 hearing) .

es of determination sent to petitioner . Respondent made the determination to proceed to collect by levy petitioner's 1990, 1993,-'and 2003 tax liabilities and a frivolous return penalty for 2004 . Petitioner seeks review of that determination under section 6330 . The issues for consideration are : (1) Whether respondent's determination to proceed with collection was an .abuse of discretion and (2) whether petitioner's motion to compel responses to interrogatories was timely or appropriate . Bac

purposes of conducting a hearing, "subsections ( c),, (d) .(other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof ), and .(e) of section 6330 [a hearing for a levy collection action] shall apply" .

On December 17, 2006, petitioner submitted to respondent Form 12153, Request for.a Collection Due Process Hearing under section 6330 (section .6330 hearing), asserting that she had previously requested relief from joint and several liability and that she should be liable for only half of the unpaid tax .

Section 6330(d) grants this Court exclusive jurisdiction to review appeals from all section 6330 determinations made after October 16, 2006, irrespective of the type of tax makinglup the underlying tax liability .

to review all determinations, .insection 6330 proceedings .

Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment with respect petitioner's appeal of respondent's section 6330 determinatio n to proceed to collect petitioner's outstanding 2001 income tax liability by means of levy .

Petitioner timely filed the petition, assigning error to the notice on the grounds that he did not receive a fair hearing because Appeals "set an arbitrary drop dead date" for a hearing and violated section 6330 by requiring statements and collection information not associated with 1999, 2000, and 2002 .

On'April 3, 2006, the IRS sent petitioner a .Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a- Hearing, under section 6330 with respect to his Federal income taxes for 2001 .

e Tax Return . On February 26, 2005., respondent sent petitioner a final notice. of intent to levy and notice of her right to a hearing (final notice),, by I I certified mail . Petitioner received the final notice but did not request a hearing under section 6330 . On May 24, 2007, petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, with the. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . She sought relief from, joint and several liability pursuant to section 6015(f) . Respondent denied .petition

Section 6330 Section 6330(a) provides that no levy may be made on any property of a taxpayer unless the Secretary has first notified the taxpayer in writing of his right to a section 6330 hearing . If the taxpayer properly requests a hearing under sectio n 6330(a), the taxpayer is entitled to alhearing before an impartial officer of the IRS Appeals

ndent also issued to petitioner a notice of proposed levy action relating to petitioner's $260,085 outstanding 1998 Federal income taxes . Petitioner challenged respondent's proposed levy by filing with respondent's Appeals Office a CDP appeal under section 6330 . Also on April 28, 2005, petitioner separately submitted to respondent's OIC office an OIC relating to his $260,085 4 - outstanding 1998 Federal income taxes based on doubt as to both liability and collectibility . ' Upon learning of pe

If the taxpayer requests a section 6330 hearing, an officer in the IRS' Appeals Office with no prior involvement in the case is to conduct the hearing .

A taxpayer who previously received a notice under section 6330 for the same tax and tax periods and did not request a hearing has already received an opportunity to challenge the existence and amount of the underlying liability .

MEMORANDUM OPINION COHEN, Judge : This proceeding was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6330 with respect to petitioner's Federal income tax liabilities for 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 .

OPINION Construed liberally , petitioner' s' assignments of error seek to chal enge ,.his underlying ,:liability,, as respondent concedes he lpp is entitled to do , under section 6330 ( c)(2)(B) The transcript of account included in the administrative record, shows tha t respondent has assessed petitioner',s unpaid employment tax liabilitjies that are the subject of respondent's collection action .~I Petitioner has neither alleged nor shown, facts tha t would s,,ggest that these transcripts are

In response , petitioner requested a hearing under section 6330 by sending a timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, to the IRS .

The Appeals officer generally explained two of the collection alternatives described in section 6330 : (1) an installment agreement, by, which the taxpayer pays the entire tax liability over time by making monthly payments, and (2) an offer-in-compromise, under which the IRS forgives a portion of }the tax debt .

The issues for decision are whether : (1) Petitioner was denied an opportunity for a fair and meaningful section 6330 hearing ; and (2) the Appeals officer abused her.

On June 6, 2006, respondent received from petitioner a request for a collection hearing (section 6330 hearing) with respect to both the notice of intent to levy and the notice o f .Federal tax lien filing .

f a notice of determination, this Court lacks jurisdiction . Respondent did not issue a notice of determination in respect of petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for 1998 , 2001, and 2002 because petitioner did nlof request a hearing under - 4 section 6330 . The Commissioner, however, must first issue a final notice of intent to levy and_ send it to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address before a hearing is held and th e notice of determination is issued . Sec . 6330(a)(2)(C) . ,

On August 1, 2005, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing), challenging both respondent's filing of the Federal tax lien and respondent's intent to levy .

The SO satisfied the requirements of section 6330, and we conclude that the IRS's decision sustaining the proposed levy action was neither erroneous nor an abuse of discretion .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge : In this collection case under section 6330, petitioners challenge respondent's proposed levy relating to petitioners' outstanding individual Federal income taxes for 1999, 2001, and 2002 in the approximate total amount of $70,000 .

The Atchisons can't challenge the amount of their ta x liability (at least from 1999 -2003 ) because they agreed to its assessment, but section 6330' does give them the right to ask for a hearing where they can offer alternatives to having the IRS seize their property, such as an offer-in-compromise (OIC) or an installment agreement .

§ 6330 (the levy notice), with respect to the section 6700 penalty . On July 17, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to sr a Hearing under I .R .C . §6320` (the lien notice), advising petitioner that a notice of Federal tax lien had been filed with respect to the section 6700 penalty and that petition

them that respondent was proposing a levy action to collect their joint income tax liability for 1999 . Respondent considers the letter to petitioner to .be a. collection action, and we agree . These letters conformed with the notice requirements of section 6330 . Although Dr . Chentnik was in prison, he advised petitioner that he would communicate with respondent regarding these, notices, which he did . As a result of Dr . Chentnik's .communications with respondent's . Appeals Office, on Februa

and therefore we will not consider the issue . Although this seems harsh for Sharon Felt, all hope may not be lost ; it is at least possible that she might be able to raise section 66(c) equitable relief as '& defense in any collection hearing under section 6330 . See sec . 6330(c)(4)(A) . 11 There is also a potential problem in deciding the appropriate standard of review. In cases like Beck v . Commissioner , T .C. Memo . 2001-198, we held that we should review for abuse of discretion . But we

Section 6330 is analogous to section 6015(f) insofar as both sections consider economic hardship as a factor in determining whether relief is appropriate . In section 6330(d)(2) Congress provided that the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals would retain jurisdiction over collection cases to allow it to consider changes in the taxpayers' circ

14090-02L to respondent's Appeals Office to provide petitioner with a section 6330 administrative hearing (section 6330 hearing) to discuss petitioner's underlying tax liabilities .

he hearing "verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met", as required by Section 6330(c)(1), or balanced the need for the "efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary",' as required by Section 6330 (c) (3) (C) .

I Section 6330 .provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing before the Commissioner may levy upon the property of any person . The person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or proposed levy, including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and offers o f collection alternatives . The perso

Respondent, argues that the notice of deficiency was valid and that respondent complied with the requirement of section 6330(a), to mail a section 6330 notice to petitioner at her last known address, and petitioner failed to timely request a collection hearing .

Respondent's Proposed Levy Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been give n notice and the opportunity for an .

purposes of conducting a hearing, "subsections ( c),, (d) .(other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof ), and .(e) of section 6330 [a hearing for a levy collection action] shall apply" .

This case arose under the provisions of section 6330, and the sole question is whether petitioner's 1998 Federal income tax liability was discharged .during her bankruptcy proceeding .

Section 6013(d)(3) provides that married individuals who file a joint return are j'ointly' and severally liable for the tax arising from the return .

A taxpayer's underlying liability is properly at issue in a section 6330 collection case if the taxpayer "did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability ." Sec .

Petitioners submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 heari g), to review the levy action .

' Petitioner did not demonstrate at the section 6330 hearing or at trial that either he or Tartar is entitled to credit for any further payments .

On November 29, 2007, the settlement officer held a telephonic section 6330 hearing with petitioner .

Standard of Review Where the underlying tax liabilit is properly at issue in a section 6330 hearing, the Court will review the matter de no,,, o .

ing them that respondent was proposing a levy action to collect their joint income tax liability for 1999. Respondent considers the letter to petitioner to be a collection action, and we agree. These letters conformed with the notice requirements of section 6330. Although Dr. Chentnik was in prison, he advised petitioner that he would communicate with respondent regarding these notices, which he did. As a result of Dr. Chentnik’s communications with respondent’s Appeals Office, on February 9, 20

ms v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 54, 58 n.4 (2008); Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44, 48 (2008); D & M Painting Corp. v. United States, 103 AFTR 2d 2009-1516, 2009-1 USTC par. 50,343 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (District Court dismissed case because taxpayer could still seek redress by either paying the tax or through obtaining a pre-levy hearing pursuant to sec. 6330). We maintain jurisdiction as to petitioners’ deficiencies and the accuracy-related penalties under secs. 6662 and 6662A.

On January 10, 2007, petitioners participated in a face-to- face section 6330 hearing with Appeals Officer Teresa Peck (Appeals Officer Peck) .

Petitioners timely requested an Appeals Office collection hearing under section 6330 relating to respondent's proposed levies .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge : This matter is befor us in this collection case under section 6330 on respondent's otion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under s ction 6673 .

" The notice of determination included an attachment that stated in pertinent part : SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under Internal Revenue Code § 6330 as a result of receiving Letter 11, Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing .

This case arose under the provisions of section 6330, and the sole question is whether there was an abuse of discretion when respondent decided to proceed with collection .

(defining the term "collection activity" to include a "section 6330 notice", which is also defined as the notice the IRS sends to taxpayers informing them of the IRS's intent to levy and their right to request a hearing) .

As previously observed by this Court in the section 6330 context : "Whether 24 - characterized as a review for abuse of discretion or as a consideration `de novo' (of a question of law), we must reject erroneous views of the law." Kendricks v .

Collection Actions Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given .notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with.

Petitioner responded to'the notices of Federal tax lien by .~ submitting a timely request for an administrative hearing (section 6330 hearing) .

First, the gener 1_statutory directive of Section 6330' is to allow an' .a grieved taxpayer to raise any and all "alternatives to collection" which are appropriate in any given contex Second, while-Section 6330(c)(2)(B) does limit the s ope challenges [sic] to the accuracy of a liability, t does not do so.

Discussion If, as part of a section 6330 proceeding, a taxpayer makes a request for abatement of interest, the Court has jurisdiction over the request for abatement of interest that is the subject of - 8 - the Commissioner's collection activities .

Section 6320(b)(1) provides that if a taxpayer requests a hearing., "such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals ." Section 6320(c) provides that section 6330 shall .apply to the conduct and judicial review of the hearing .

In a .collection case under section 6320 or section 6330, a taxpayer is not permitted to challenge his underlying Federalincome tax"liability if he or she had,a prior opportunity to do so, Hoffman-v .

Commissioner , supra, neither a section 6320 nor a section 6330 collection case was involved, and Dixon provides no support for petitioners' cross-motion for partial summary judgment .

Our jurisdiction to review determinations under section 6330 with respect to trust fund recovery penalties is relatively recent .

Included in the administrative file created by respondent’s Appeals Office regarding petitioner’s request for a section 6330 hearing (hearing) is an IMFOLT transcript that shows a history of petitioner’s address changes.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy is begun .

Respondent argues that petitioner ' s receipt of the notice of deficiency and/or.his other opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liabilities precluded him from raising such a challenge, citing section 6330 (c)(2)(B) .

130 T.C. No. 6 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD AND MABEL KELBY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13268-03L. Filed April 28, 2008. Ps petitioned this Court for review of a notice of determination issued under sec. 6330, I.R.C. Thereafter, the case was remanded to R’s Appeals Office three times; each time a supplemental notice of determination was issued. On the third remand, R conceded that Ps’ 1989 tax liability was fully satisfied as of April 1990, and the

The issues for decision are whether : (1) The "section 6330 notice" issued to petitioner is valid ; (2) petitioner's request for relief from joint and several liability was timely ; and (3) petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) for each year .

001 under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) of $1,966 .50 and $296 .03, respectively . On May 5, 2005, respondent mailed petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, and petitioner timely requested a hearing under section 6330 . On May 12, 2005, respondent mailed petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, and petitioner timely requested a hearing under section 6320 . Respondent offered petitioner a face-to-face h

On February 6, 2007, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or section 6330 (notice of determination) with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005 .

Discussion Section 6330 (c)(2)(A)(iii) permits a taxpayer to propose collection alternatives to the filing of a Federal tax lien.

Discussion Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner canno t proceed with collection by levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determination .

Because the decision letter is not a "determination" under section 330, respondent argues, the Court does not have jurisdiction an petitioners are not entitled to judicial review under section 6320 or section 6330 with respect to 1994 through 2002 .

The consent order further provided that petitioner's rights under section 6330 would be impaired in no way .

o - 4 - a Hearing Under IRC 6320 . On June 22, 2006, the IRS sent petitioners a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with respect to their liabilities for 1992, 1993, and 1994 . Petitioners timely requested a hearing under section 6330 . In a letter dated September 18, 2006, the hearing process was explained to them . The hearing was held on October 31, 2006 . Petitioner James Rutherford (petitioner) appeared at the hearing with experienced tax counsel . During the hear

other notice that might confer jurisdiction on this Court, such as a notice pertaining to a lien under section 6321 or to a levy under section 6331 (both of which are procedures applicable to "any person liable to pay any tax" (emphasis added)) .' Such collection activities give rise to a notice and opportunity for a hearing under section 6320 or section 6330 (both of which explicitly presume "unpaid tax") .

Section 6330 was amended and this Court was given jurisdiction to review respondent's collection determinations without regard to the type of underlying tax liability that was involved, but this amendment was made effective only for - 6 - determinations made by respondent after October 16, 2006 . See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub . L. 109-28

`Under section 6330 petitioners challenge respondent's notice " R` 'of(-determination as to respondent's proposed levy action relatin g ._-to~_petitioners' 1998, .'.2000, and 2001 Federal income taxes , representing a cumulat°ive total liability of approximately ilk _$10..,,.000 . Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment . Unless otherwise'' ind

On November 8, 2005, petitioners requested an Appeals Office collection hearing under section 6330 with regard to respondent's notice of intent to levy .

If a section 6330 hearing is reques ed, the hearing is to be conducted by the Commissioner's Office o Appeals, and at the hearing the Appeals officer or employee onducting it must verify that the requirements of any applicable aw or administrative procedure have been met . Sec . 6330(b)(1 , (c)(1) . The taxpayer may raise at the hearing "any relevant i

§ 6330 (the levy notice), with respect to the section 6700 penalty. On July 17, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under I .R .C . § 6320 (the lien notice), advising petitioner that a notice of Federal tax lien had been filed with respect to the section 6700 penalty and that petitioner h

This collection action is in direct violation of Section 6330 and 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code .

etter . Cf . Craig v . Commissioner, 119 T .C . 252 (2002) (where the Appeals Office issued a decision letter on the mistaken assumption that the hearing request was untimely, the decision letter was a determination sufficient for jurisdiction under section 6330) . Respondent relies on the presumption of official regularity to establish that a fully executed 2004 summary notice of determination was completed . The presumption of official regularity supports the official acts of public officers,

tes in this case . A copy of the Court's order of dismissal and decision is attached as an appendix to this opinion . On July 24, 2006, a notice of tax lien filing (notice of lien) was sent to petitioner, advising him of his right to a hearing under section 6330 . The notice of lien related to outstanding income tax liabilities for 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 . The notice of determination that is the basis of this proceeding was sent to petitioner on December 1, 2006 . It descri

Even where the Tax Court is confined, under the principles of Robinette-, to a review of thekrecord compiled in a section 6330 hearing, a trial is often appropriate to allow the reviewing court "to receive evidence concerning what happened during the agency proceedings ." Id .

However, petitioner states that the basis of its allegations "cannot be fully set forth at this time given the unclear basis for the Commissioner ' s conclusions ." Lastly, petitioner contends it was improperly denied the right to an in- person section 6330 hearing .

- 3 - had appealed respondent's rejection of the offer of $250 . The Court assumes that an appeal was denied. Petitioner did not submit a new or amended Form 656, Offer In Compromise, to the Appeals officer considering his request for relief under section 6330 . During discussions between the Appeals Office and petitioner's counsel, two "additional" grounds for relief were raised: (1) Alternative means of collection due to economic hardship, or (2) placing the liability into "currently not colle

Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusivenes s IRC section 6330 require[s] that the Settlement Officer consider [whether] the collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the tax- payer's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary .

In his amended petition, petitioner argues that respondent improperly denied him a face-to-face section 6330 hearing .

f determination following the administrative hearing, a taxpayer has the right to a judicial review of the determination . Sec . 6330(d) . A taxpayer may petition this Court to review the determination, and our review is subject to the provisions of section 6330 . The judicial review that we are required to conduct in section 6320/6330 cases focuses on the determination made by the IRS . Unless the underlying tax liability of the taxpayer that is the subject of the proceeding is properly at issu

Petitioners timely requested an Appeals Office collection hearing under section 6330 relating to respondent's proposed levies .

Such collection activities give rise to a notice and opportunity for a hearing under section 6320 or section 6330 (both of which explicitly presume “unpaid tax”).

on July 22, 1998 . Section 3401 of that Act, 112 Stat . 746, grants this Court jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determination as to the propriety of filing a notice of Federal tax lien under section 6320 or a proposed levy on property under section 6330 . In a collection review action, this Court's jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice of determination by respondent's Office of Appeals after the taxpayer has requested an administrative h

ed in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing . An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an installment - 6 -

" Procedure Under Section 633 0 Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice of his right to request a hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals after notice of the Commissioner's intent to levy on his property and rights to property in furtherance of the collection of unpaid Federal taxes .

tice of the lien's filing within 5 days after the date of its filing . Section 6320(b) also provides the taxpayer with an opportunity for a hearing before the Office of Appeals . The hearing is conducted pursuant to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 6330 . Sec. 6320(c) . At the hearing, the taxpayer may raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax including : (1) Challenges to the appropriateness of the IRS's collection actions ; and (2) offers of collection alternatives (i .e ., a

Discussion and Analysis Verification that Law and Procedures were followed Under IRC section 6330 you are entitled in a Collection Due Process matter to raise the issue of liability if you did not otherwise have an opportunity to so.

In his motion, respondent moves to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction principally on the ground that "no Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6320 and/or Section 6330, as authorized by I .R.C .

Rule 121(d) provides that, when a properly supported motion for summary - 5 - judgment is made, the adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial ." Standard of Review A taxpayer may raise challenges "to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability" in a section 6330 proceeding if he "did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability ." Sec .

The timing of the filing of the NFTL is consistent with the provisions of section 6320 as well as section 6321,' and does not violate any of the provisions of section 6330 .8 To the extent that petitioner, if only by implication, suggests the contrary, the fact that the NFTL was filed when it was filed provides no basis for finding that respondent's determination to proceed with collection by levy of petitioner's 1999 tax liability is an abuse of discretion .

The record establishes that the settlement officer proceeded in the manner contemplated by section 6330, and other than a s I 3 In general and subject to various conditions that need not be discussed here, that section provides that if any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay such tax within 10 days after notice and demand for payment, the Commissioner is authorized to collect such tax by levy on the person's property

On or about August 1, 2003, petitioner mailed to respondent a letter requesting a section 6330 Appeals Office hearing.

iting by the Secretary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing . An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of - 4 - section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreeme

he lien's filing within 5 business days after the date of its filing . Section 6320(b) also provides the taxpayer with an opportunity for a hearing before the Office of Appeals . The hearing is conducted pursuant to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay the taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment . Section 6331(d) provides

ers, we stated our impressions that petitioner, aided by counsel, may have (1) instituted and maintained the proceeding before this court primarily to delay the collection of his income tax liability, (2) in support of that goal, raised frivolous arguments and relied on groundless claims, and (3) unreasonably failed to pursue his opportunity for a section 6330 hearing .

constitute a waiver of the restrictions on assessment; and (5) that petitioners were not precluded by section 6330 (c) (2) (B) from arguing that the assessment violated section 6213(a).

in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing . An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreeme

Discussion Section 6330(d)(1) provides that this Court has jurisdiction to review a determination under section 6330 if the taxpayer appeals "within 30 days of [the] determination" .

Section 6331(d) provides that the levy authorized in section 6331(a) may be made with respect to any "unpaid tax" only after the Secretary has .notified the person in writing of his intention to make the levy and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy action is begun .

Petitioner' s Hearing Request Taxpayers must submit a written request for an administrative hearing with respect to a final notice issued under section 6330 within the 30 -day period commencing the day after the date of the final notice .

Section 6330 elaborates on section 6331 and provides that upon a timely request a taxpayer is entitled to a collection hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals . Sec . 6330(a)(3)(B), (b)(1) . The taxpayer is entitled to appeal the determination of the Appeals Office, if made on or before October 16, 2006, to the Tax Court or a U .S . District Court

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is begun .

A face-to- face hearing is not invariably required by section 6330 ; the hearing may be conducted by correspondence or telephone .

wart) sent to petitioner a Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, listing the amounts that were owed on petitioner's tax liabilities for 1999 through 2004 as - 3 - totaling $81,287 .21. Petitioner requested a section 6330 hearing. Attached to his request was a document entitled "Notice of Appeal , Challenge and Objection, Request for Production of Documents , Demand for Hearing and Judicial Review, and Counterclaim and Offset and To Dismiss Notice" . In tha

ecretary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative - 11 - hearing. Sec. 6320(b). An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made. Section 6331(d) pro

A settlement officer is not required to produce any documents at a section 6330 hearing .

On July 19, 2005, petitioner mailed to respondent a written request for a section 6330 Appeals Office hearing relating to respondent's June 23, 2005, levy notice .

Discussion and Analysis Verification that Law and Procedures were followe d Under IRC section 6330 you are entitled in a Collection Due Process matter to raise the issue of liability if you did not otherwise have an opportunity to so .

MEMORANDUM OPINION SWIFT, Judge : This matter is before us on cross-motions in limine seeking a ruling as to whether petitioner, in this collection action under section 6330, may challenge and may offer evidence as to the amount of her underlying 2002 individual Federal income tax liability.

: BRIEF BACKGROUND Notilce of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing was sent April 9, 2005 . Your timely request for a Collection Due Process Hearing was received May 9, 2005, within the thirty-day timeframe set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 6330 . A telephone conference intended to address collection alternatives was scheduled for October 27, 2005 by letter dated October 7, 2005 . The'letter advised you that you had to be in full compliance with all filing and payment requirements

under sec. 6015(f), we should consider only respondent’s administrative record with respect to petitioner’s taxable years at issue, respondent relies on Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), revg. 123 T.C. 85 (2004), a case under sec. 6330. The Court to which an appeal in this case would ordinarily lie is the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We are not bound by Robinette. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir.

Section 6330 (a) provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of any person unless the Secretary first notifies him or her in writing of the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office . 2 At the hearing , a taxpayer may raise any relevant issues including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of

Petitioner did not make any justiciable arguments or present any information that properly addressed the merits of the underlying tax liability,' the validity of the assessment, or the conduct of the proceeding or compliance with section 6330 requirements .

On N vember 16, 1999, respondent mailed to petitioner (again at the ho e address from which petitioner had been evicted in June of 1 98) a section 6330 levy notice relating to the 1996 tax deficienc that respondent had assessed.

At the time of petitioners’ section 6330 hearing, Mrs.

In an OIC submitted with respect to the requested section 6330 hearing and signed by each petitioner on July 27, 2004, it was represented: "In March, 2001, Jeff and Cindy had their tax returns prepared and were told that they owed $1,962,365 i n tentative AMT because of the exercise of his stock options ." On January 31, 2005, Mrs .

s pending the outcome of the due process hearing. - 26 - 7) The Settlement Officer in your case has had no prior involvement with you concerning the tax periods at issue in this due process hearing, pursuant to requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 6330. ISSUES RAISED BY THE TAXPAYER 1) that you should be given opportunity to work out a fair payment plan or settlement, since you were unable to pay the taxes in full. Finding: Collection alternatives were considered, including an Installme

Smith explained what issues could be addressed during the section 6330 hearing, requested that petitioner submit financial information and any desired collection alternatives, and scheduled a telephonic section 6330 hearing for May 11, 2005 .

Section 6330 elaborates on section 6331 and provides that upon a timely request a taxpayer is entitled to a collection hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals . Sec . 6330(a)(3)(B), (b)(1) . At the collection hearing, the taxpayer may raise "any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy," including appropriate spousal defenses

urisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress . Naftel v. Commissioner , 85 T .C. 527, 529 (1985) . Petitioner contends that this Court has jurisdiction in this cas e to review a collection action under section 6330 . Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice of the taxpayer's right to request a hearing before certain levy actions are taken by the Commissioner in furtherance of collection from the taxpayer of unpaid Federal taxes . If a hearing is

ge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability . Sec . 6330 (c) (2) (B) . In Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 183, 185-186 (2001), we stated : Our Rules require petitioners to specify the facts upon which they rely for relief under section 6330 . A petition filed under section 6330 must contain "Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which the petitioner bases each assignment of error" . Rule 331(b)(5) . * * * In the petition and the response to respondent's moti

." That is because, according to petitioner, respondent made a wrongful levy with respect to her taxable years 1998 and 2002, and "the Tax Court has jurisdiction to address wrongful levy refund claims and equitable relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6330 . " About five months after the Court issued its opinion in Billings v . Commissioner , supra , Congress passed the Act . The Act amended section 6015(e)(1) to provide that the Court may review respondent's denial of relief under that se

1989, The IRS requested that you file returns for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and gave you an opportunity to appeal the proposed assessments . You did not do so, therefore the underlying liability issue is precluded within Collec- tion Due Process under IRC §6330 . There is no informa- tion in the file that warrants the withdrawal of the filed NFTL . The filed NFTL is the appropriate action in this case . Brief Background The CDP notice was for unpaid income tax liabilities for your 2000, 2001 and 2002

Chapman (officer Chapman) sent petitioner a letter acknowledging petitioner's request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduled a telephone conference on September 18, 2006, to discuss collection alternatives .

DiRicco (DiRicco) was ineligible to serve as tax matters partner (TMP) of the partnerships may be considered in this case ; (2) if so, whether respondent 's Appeals officer properly determined, during the section 6330 hearing (hearing), that petitioner was precluded by section 6330(c)(2)(B) from challenging the use of TEFRA audit procedures in the previous cases ; (3) whether respondent ' s criminal investigation of petitioner converted the partnership items on his tax returns to nonpartnership

Where, as here, the underlying tax liability is not at issue, our review of the notice of determination under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion .

9757-05L, a section 6330 case regarding collection of petitioner's 1999 tax liability, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 .

Under section 6330 (d)(1), where a taxpayer' s underlying tax liability is not at issue , we generally review respondent's Appeals Office notice of determination for an abuse of discretion. Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C. 604, 609 -610 (2000) . In an Appeals Office hearing , generally respondent is required to consider issues raised by a taxpayer inclu

We have held that section 6330 "provides no consolation to petitioners who themselves made the choice not to receive * * * [a notice of deficiency] ." Aguirre v .

On September 13, 2005, respondent sent petitioners a letter acknowledging petitioners' request for a section 6330 hearing .

Standard of Review Because the underlying tax liability is not at issue, this Court's review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion .

On April 28, 2004, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of determination under section 6330 was sent to petitioner for the years 1990 through 1993.

- 4 - By law, you are entitled to only one CDP Hearing under Internal Revenue Code Section 6330 for the unpaid taxes listed in our Notice of Intent to Levy .

After the Appeals hearing process, section 6330 gives this Court jurisdiction to review the Appeals officer's determination .

Pursuant to the applicable regulations, the Appeals Office shall "attempt to conduct a * * * [section 6330 hearing] and issue a Notice of Determination as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances ." Sec .

Further, it has been held that an Appeals officer's failure to provide a taxpayer with a written set of all rules, regulations, and procedures applying to section 6320 and section 6330 hearings was not an abuse of discretion .

tary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative - .11 - hearing . Sec . 6320 (b) . An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made . Section 6331(d

A settlement officer is not required to produce any documents at a section 6330 hearing .

However, as later explained, the $50,000 limit is expressed in different statutory language, depending on the type of tax in issue (e.g., income, estate, or gift) and the type of proceeding (e.g., deficiency cases, section 6015(e) spousal relief cases, or section 6330 collection proceedings).

ied in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. An administrative hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreemen

Section 633 0 Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way of a levy until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative - 6 - review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and, if dissatisfied, the person may obtain judicial review of the administrative determinati

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is begun.

Discussion Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection by levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice of, and the opportunity for, an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative determinati

The only issues raised by petitioner at the section 6330 hearing were : (1) That petitioner did not understand the nature of the decision document he signed in his deficiency proceeding for 1997 in this Court ;' and (2) whether petitioner's tax liability for 1997 was discharged in bankruptcy .

Discussion Mootness This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the Commissioner’s administrative determinations.

We have also held, though, that the Commissioner has no power to waive or extend section 6320 and section 6330's time limits for requesting a CDP hearing.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before any levy is begun.

An attachment to the determination contained the following explanation: In your request for a hearing under IRC Section 6330 you disagreed with the proposed levy action because you filed Form 1040 1991 and the liability assessed is incorrect.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer’s right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is made.

ssued to petitioners a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with regard to their unpaid taxes for 2000 . Petitioners submitted to respondent an amended return for 2000 and a request for an administrative hearing under section 6330 . In their amended return, petitioners claimed that they overstated the amount of tax due on their original return, and they claimed they were due a refund of $519,087 . Contrary to their original return, petitioners submitted a Form 625

1999 and 2000 taxable years became the subject of IRS collection activity through issuance of notices of intent to levy. Appeals Officer S thereafter conducted a simultaneous equivalent hearing with respect to 1999 and collection hearing pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., with respect to 2000. A principal focus during that proceeding was the availability of collection alternatives. The Appeals Office sustained the proposed collection activity in November of 2003. Meanwhile, Ps’ 2001 and 2002 taxable

The Section 6330 Hearing Respondent issued a Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, on November 8, 2000. In the Final Notice, respondent stated that petitioner owed $270,087.60 for 1989, $108,044.26 for 1990, and $5,507.84 for 1999. On December 1, 2000, petitioner sent to respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Col

- 14 - Under section 6330, the taxpayer can question the underlying unless he has been previously given the right to appeal or petition the Tax Court regarding the matter .

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is begun .

ting by the Secretary of the filing of a Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing . Sec . 6320(b) . An administrative hearing under section 6320-i s conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 . Sec . 6320(c) . At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including a spousal defense or collection alternatives such as an OIC or an installment agreement . Sec . 6330(

SERVED NOV 14 2006 - 2 - Background On June 8, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner a Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code2 (decision letter) regarding his unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 1998 and 2000, in which respondent's Office of Appeals sustained the levy action .3 On July 6, 2005, petitioner sent to the Court a document, which states in relevant part : Dear Tax Court Judge, The Collection Due Process (hereafter

6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and if dissatisfied, with Judicial review of the adminis- trative d

se, assessed the deficiency and the accuracy-related penalty recited above. On July 12, 2003, respondent notified petitioners of an intent to levy with respect to their unpaid tax liability for 2000 and advised them of their right to a hearing under section 6330. On August 7, 2003, respondent notified petitioners of an intent to file a Federal tax lien and served notice of their right to a hearing under section 6320. On September 10, 2003, petitioners filed a timely Form 12153, Request for a Col

RVICE T.C. Memo. 2006-277 | CAL. | STAT. | UNITED STATES TAX COURT FILES WILLIAM M. LEGGETT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 15167-04L. Filed December 28, 2006. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a de.termination by R that levy action is appropriate. Held: R's determination to proceed with collection by levy is sustained; Held, further, a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and awarded to the

Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6330 (Levy) of the Internal Revenue Code sustaining levy action as to taxable years 1993 and 1994, and a Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 (Lien) of the Internal Revenue Code sustaining the filing of a Federal tax lien with respect to taxable years 1996, 1997, and 1999 .

Schwersensky by letter that the Form 1040 they submitted for 2000 was frivolous and that the position taken 2 The facts hereinafter are established in the record and/or undisputed. 3 Although petitioner's spouse, Maureen T. Schwersensky, requested a sec. 6330 hearing jointly with petitioner and the resulting notice of determination was issued to both, only petitioner filed a petition in this case. 4 These contentions included, inter alia, that "no section of the Internal Revenue Code * * * estab

114, 120 (2003) (Tax Court’s jurisdiction to decide whether discharge occurred extends to section 6330 proceedings but not to 17Petitioners’ reply brief set forth the aforementioned contention as follows: Further, petitioners, the injured taxpayers, assert that any late penalties for a faultless 2000 tax year late filing are statutorily and explicitly barred by applicable federal bankruptcy statutes.

On February 25, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of right to a hearing (Levy Notice) with regard to the balances petitioner owed on the above assessments for 1995, 1996, and 1997 and explaining petitioner's right to a section 6330 hearing with regard to the proposed levy .

Generally, we may consider only those issues that the taxpayer raised during a section 6330 hearing.

Respondent therefore argued that petitioner is precluded from challenging the underlying tax liability, including additions to tax and interest, in this section 6330 proceeding .

A taxpayer may raise at a section 6330 hearing challenges to the existence or amount of an underlying tax liability for any tax period if the taxpayer did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability .

(3) Impartial officer .--The hearing under this subsection shall be conducted by an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) before the first hearing under this section or section 6330 . A taxpayer may waive the requirement of this paragraph. In RRA 1998 sec . 1001(a)(4), 112 Stat . 689, Congress also directed that respondent's Appeals officers should exercise independent judgment, and Congress prohibited respondent's

casm ERVICE AL. I T.C. Memo. 2006-192 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WOODROW REYNOLDS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 17810-04L. Filed September 11, 2006. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action is appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced only frivolous arguments, R's determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673(a), I.

Section 6330 generally provides that the IRS cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an IRS Office of Appeals hearing) . Section 6330(c)(1) provides that the Appeals officer shall o

utory exception to the rule that “State law defines ownership interests in property for purposes of Federal tax collections under section 6321.” Majority op. p. 52; see also majority op. pp. 56, 57, 59. This is a section 6015 case, not a collection (section 6330) case. As the majority states: “The issue for decision is the amount of refund, if any, petitioner is entitled to under section 6015(g).” Majority op. p. 48. Collection is independent from the determination of whether a taxpayer is an “i

issued to petitioners a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with regard to their unpaid taxes for 2000. Petitioners submitted to respondent an amended return for 2000 and a request for an administrative hearing under section 6330. In their amended return, petitioners claimed that they overstated the amount of tax due on their original return, and they claimed they were due a refund of $519,087. Contrary to their original return, petitioners submitted a Form 6251

On May 10, 2002, respondent sent to petitioner a Letter 1058 (Final Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing) under section 6330 with respect to petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1993.

Respondent mailed to petitioner a Final Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6330 (final notice) on July 12, 2002, with regard to petitioner’s unpaid Federal income taxes for 1998 and 1999.

314, 317 (2004); see also Nelson v.

Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the - 5 - amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer’s right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is begun.

Discussion This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the Commissioner’s administrative determinations.

), this Court may consider certain collection actions taken or proposed by the Commissioner’s Appeals Office. Under paragraph (2) of section 6330(d), the Commissioner’s Appeals Office retains jurisdiction with respect to the determination made under section 6330. As part of the process, a case may be remanded to the Appeals Office for further consideration. See, e.g., Parker v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2004-226. The situation is different, however, in a section 6015 proceeding, which is sometimes

A taxpayer may dispute an underlying tax liability at a section 6330 hearing if he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.

The Court concludes that petitioner is precluded from challenging the - 5 - existence or amount of her 1992 and 2000 tax liabilities in a section 6330 hearing or before the Court.

Section 6330 Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the process of collection by lien and levy are taken. Upon request, a taxpayer is entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial officer from the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals. Sec. 6330(b)(1), (3). At the hearing, the Appeals officer is re

Section 6330 does not contemplate that the Court - 8 - directly review prior actions of IRS employees. See sec. 6330(c) and (d) (“determination” is made by Appeals officer; court reviews determination). The Court may indirectly review the prior actions of IRS employees in that the determination by the Appeals officer must take into consideration w

ified in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. Sec. 6320(b). A hearing under section 6320 is conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). At the administrative hearing, a taxpayer is entitled to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax, including collection alternatives such as an offer in compromise or an installment agreement.3 Sec. 6330(b) and

l Notices of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with regard to his unpaid Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1985 to 1995 and for the taxable years 1996 to 1999. P submitted to respondent timely requests for a hearing under sec. 6330, I.R.C. On Mar. 3, 2004, P filed a bankruptcy petition under ch. 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On May 25, 2004, while P’s bankruptcy case remained open, R issued to P separate Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Actions for the taxab

Petitioners’ Section 6330 Hearing On October 28, 2003, petitioners attended a hearing before Appeals Officer J.T.

- 5 - On November 1, 2001, petitioner submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, requesting a hearing under section 6330 with respect to the 1997 taxable year.

Petitioner and respondent dispute what issues petitioner raised and what actually transpired at the section 6330 hearing.

Revenue Officer Spivey to confirm the veracity of their claim. The Appeals officer could have easily investigated the matter; however, this Court has previously held that, even if the Appeals officer erred in failing to consider the accuracy of the 3Sec. 6330 does not afford the taxpayer the right to have a witness subpoenaed for the Appeals hearing. Therefore, the Appeals officer had no duty to subpoena Mr. Spivey. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41-42 (2000). - 9 - assessments, unless the

- 2 - The motion arises in the context of a petition filed in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action under section 6330 sent to petitioners and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint liability under section 6015 sent to Ms.

ified in writing by the Secretary of the filing of a Federal tax lien and provided with an opportunity for an administrative hearing. Sec. 6320(b). Hearings under section 6320 are conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in section 6330. Sec. 6320(c). When an Appeals officer issues a determination regarding a disputed collection action, a taxpayer may seek judicial review with the Tax Court or a District Court, as appropriate. Sec. 6330(d); see Davis v. Commissioner, 11

T.C. Memo. 2005-291 UNITED STATES TAX COURT GARY WRIGHT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4311-04L. Filed December 20, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6

ioner reported but did not pay and additional amounts not explained in the record. - 8 - under section 6702 for 1997-2001. A Notice of Federal Tax Lien was recorded in Salt Lake County, Utah. On April 22, 2004, petitioner requested a hearing under section 6330. In the hearing request, petitioner contended: (1) No lien may be imposed because no valid assessment was made; (2) he did not receive a statutory notice and demand as required; (3) the Appeals officer must, but did not, give him the Treas

Where the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability is not at issue, we review the Commissioner’s administrative determination under section 6330 for abuse of discretion.2 Goza v.

If the taxpayer requests a section 6330 hearing, he or she may raise in that hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the collection actions, and “offers of collection alternatives, which may include the posting of a bond, the substitution of other assets, an insta

), this Court may consider certain collection actions taken or proposed by the Commissioner's Appeals Office. Under paragraph (2) of section 6330(d), the Commissioner's Appeals Office retains jurisdiction with respect to the determination made under section 6330. As part of the process, a case may be remanded to the Appeals Office for further consideration. See, e.g., Parker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-226. The situation is different, however, in a section 6015 proceeding, which is sometime

- 4 - Discussion This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the Commissioner’s administrative determinations.

The regulations provide that there is no period of time within which the Appeals Office must conduct a section 6330 hearing or issue a notice of determination and state in part: “Appeals will, however, attempt to conduct a * * * [section 6330 hearing] and issue a Notice of Determination as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances.” Sec.

T.C. Memo. 2005-90 UNITED STATES TAX COURT DAVID A. LEHMANN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3386-04L. Filed April 25, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec.

T.C. Memo. 2005-132 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT HOLLIDAY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18974-03L. Filed June 1, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R to proceed with collection by lien of assessed income tax liabilities for 1991, 1992, and 1993. P filed joint returns with his spouse for these years that reported total income of “$0” and a total tax of “$0” on all three of the ret

In the petition and in an accompanying document filed as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner relied principally on the claim that he was denied a proper hearing under section 6330 due to the inability to record.2 2 Petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied by order of this Court on Jan.

Respondent argues that petitioner is prohibited from challenging the underlying liability because petitioner did not raise it at the section 6330 hearing, and this Court cannot determine whether respondent abused his discretion as to a matter not raised at the section 6330 hearing.

Where issues related to the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability were properly raised in a section 6330 proceeding, we may review the determination of that liability.

T.C. Memo. 2005-4 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SAL ALANIZ AND RUTH ALANIZ, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 5814-03L. Filed January 11, 2005. Ps filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R to proceed with collection by levy of assessed income tax liabilities, plus penalties and interest, for 1994, 1996, and 1997. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment under Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice

§ 6330 (c) (2) (B) . * * * * * * * Under I.R.C. § 6673, the Court may award a penalty to the United States in an amount up to $25,000 when the proceeding has been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay, or if the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000

ring was held on respondent's motion. Petitioner, who is incarcerated, did not appear but instead submitted a statement under Rule 50(c). Respondent offered the testimony of the settlement officer who handled petitioner's request for a hearing under section 6330. We base our findings on the facts that are not in dispute, petitioner's submissions, and various documents from petitioner's administrative file in the record. We rely on respondent's witness's testimony only to the extent it contains a

T.C. Memo. 2005-94 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JAMES VERNON WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13821-03L. Filed May 2, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under se

T.C. Memo. 2005-262 UNITED STATES TAX COURT , men. ROBERT NEWSTAT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent* Docket No. 16989-02L. Filed November 10, 2005. P initially filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate for the taxable years 1985 and 1999. Following remand for further administrative consideration of the 1999 year, R issued a supplemental determination upholding levy action for

merly designated sec. 6404(i), and before that sec. 6404(g). Sec. 6404(h) is applicable to requests for abatement after July 30, 1996. We have jurisdiction over petitioner’s request for abatement of interest because her request was made as part of a sec. 6330 proceeding. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000). - 7 - exercised this discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 23. Petitioner does not allege that the

T.C. Memo. 2005-286 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT E. CRANDALL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 7599-03L. Filed December 15, 2005. P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under

Petitioner’s wife did not sign the Form 12153 and was not involved in the subsequent section 6330 hearing or in the proceedings herein.

Section 6320(c) provid s that the Appeals Office hearing generally shall be conduc ed consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c, (d), and (e) .

Petitioners' complaints with respect to the administrative proceedings include the following: No legitimate hearing under section 6330 ever took place; petitioners were not permitted to record a hearing; petitioners were denied the opportunity to raise issues they deemed "relevant" (e.g., the "existence" of the underlying tax liability); and requested documentation had not been produced (e.g., record of the assessments, statutory notice - 8 - and demand for payment,