TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Maureen Patricia Wilson
Docket Number: 1026-07L
Judge: Chiechi
Opinion Type: reported
Filed: 09/10/2008
Pages: 12

131 T .C . No . 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MAUREEN PATRICIA WILSON, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 1026-07L . Filed September 10, 2008 . P did not timely request a hearing with R's Appeals Office with respect to a proposed levy action . As a result, that office held an equivalent hearing with respect to that proposed action . Thereafter, R's Appeals office sent P a document entitled " NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING COLLECTION ACTION ( S) UNDER ECTION 6320 and/or 6330 " in which that office recited hose facts . In the document that R's Appeals Office ent P, that office concluded that it was sustaining he proposed levy action and that P was not entitled to eek judicial review of the conclusions in that docuent . Inconsistently, R's Appeals Office concluded in he document that it sent P that P was entitled to seek udicial review of the conclusions therein by timely iling a petition with the Court . Held : The document that R's Appeals Office sent P oes not embody a determination under sec . 6330, I .R .C . eld, further , that document is not a valid notice of etermination under sec . 6330, I .R .C ., that P is enti- SERVED SEP 10 2008 - 2 - tied to appeal under sec . 6330(d)(1), I .R .C . further , the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case . Held , Maureen Patricia Wilson, pro se . Laura Daly and A . Gary Begun , for respondent . OPINIO N CHIECHI, Judge : This case is before the Court on its Order dated May 30, 2008 (Court's Show Cause Order), in which the Court ordered each party to file a written response to that Orde r showing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of juris- diction . We shall make the Court's Show Cause Order absolute and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction . The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the following . Petitioner' s address shown in the petition in this case was in Belleville, Michigan . On June 29, 1998, respondent assessed against petitioner a trust fund recovery penalty under section 66721 of $37,560 .77 that was attributable to the respective unpaid Federal tax liabilities of New Wave Communications, Inc ., for the period s 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times . 3 - ende June 30, 1996, through September 30, 1997 .2 (We shal l refe to any unpaid assessed portion of that penalty, as well as int e st as provided by law accrued after June 29, 1998, as petit oner's unpaid liability . ) C n June 29, 1998, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of b ance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid liability . C n July 19, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a final notic e of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (not: c e of intent to levy) with respect to petitioner's unpaid liab : ity . P etitioner did not submit to respondent Form 12153, Request for Collection Due Process Hearing, until March 6, 2006 . Ther with a r fter, respondent granted petitioner an equivalent hearing espondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office) with respect to the a tice of intent to levy . December 20, 2006, the Appeals Office issued to peti- tion a document (Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document) that i ocluded a form letter entitled " NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONC N ING COLLECTION ACTION ( S) UNDER SECTION 6320 and/or 6330" (sect i on 6330 determination form letter) . The Appeals Office is supp s led to use that form letter where it makes a determinatio n n Apr . 15, 2003, respondent credited a refund of $507 due to petitioner for her taxable year 2002 against the unpaid trust fund recovery penalty that respondent had assessed against her on June 29, 1998 . under section 6330 to sustain a proposed collection action .3 See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) pt . 8 .22 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1(4) (Oct . 19, 4 - 2007) . The section 6330 determination form letter contains certain boilerplate language that states in pertinent part : We have reviewed the collection actions that were taken or proposed for the period(s) shown above . This letter is your Notice of Determination, as required by law . A summary of our determination is stated below . Th e attached statement shows, in detail, the matters we considered at your Appeals hearing and our conclusions about them . If you want to dispute this determination in court, you must file a petition with the United States Tax Court within 30 days from the date of this letter . The section 6330 determination form letter also contains certain information specific to the taxpayer to whom it is issued, such as the name and the address of the taxpayer, the type of tax at issue, the tax period at issue, and the Appeals Office's " Summary of Determination " regarding the action proposed to collect the taxpayer's tax liability . The Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document contained the boilerplate language discussed above . That document also con- tained the following " Summary of Determination " that pertained t o 3Instead of using the section 6330 determination form let- ter, the Appeals Office is supposed to use a form letter entitled "Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code" (form decision letter) where the taxpayer did not timely request a hearing with that office under sec . 6330 and an equivalent hearing was granted . See IRM pt . 8 .22 .1 .3 .2(3) (Oct . 19, 2007) . peti t i rllection Due Process (CDP) requested regarding the oposed levy action . he request was received 3/10/2006 . 1058 was sent to the taxpayers [sic] last known dress on 7/19/2003 . erefore, the request made was not timely . sed on the telephone conference and the administra- ive file the collection action is sustained . Sfee the attached Appeals Case Memorandum . T he Appeals case memorandum included as part of the Appeals Offi c e December 20, 2006 document stated in pertinent part : Per review of computer transcripts, the CDP notice tter 11 (LT-11) Final Notice - of Intent to Levy, and tice of Your Right to a Hearing was sent by Certifie d ail, Return Receipt Requested, to the taxpayer's last own address, which was also the address, indicated on he CDP hearing request . The date of the notice wa s ly 19, 2003 . IRC 6330 * * * allows a taxpayer to raise any relent issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed vy at the due process hearing . The Form 12153, quest for a Collection Due Process Hearing was reived March 10, 2006, which was more than 30 days from e date of the LT11 . Although the taxpayer's reques t as not timely regarding the levy, the taxpayer was ranted an Equivalent Hearing -- equivalent in all spects except that the taxpayer will not have th e r ~ght to judicial review . Therefore, the decision of peals will be final regarding the Notice of levy . Oi June 4, 2008, respondent filed a response to the Court's Show C muse order (respondent's response) . Although the Cour t order e I petitioner to file a response to that Order, she did no t do so - 6 - On July 8, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the Court's Show Cause Order . There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner . Counsel for respondent appeared and was heard . On July 22, 2008, respondent filed a supplement to respon- dent's response . In respondent' s response as supplemented, respondent indicates that it is respondent's position that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the instant case . Our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely filed petition . Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 498 (2000) . In Offiler , the Court addressed whether it had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) where the taxpayer had failed to request timely a hearing with the Appeals Office under section 6330 . The Court held in Offiler that (1) because the taxpayer there in- volved did not timely request such a hearing, "Appeals made no determination pursuant to section 6330(c)", id . at 497, and (2) "Because there was no Appeals determination for this Court to review, there is simply no basis for our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)", id . at 498 . See also Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263, 269-270 (2001) ; Kennedy v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 255, 261-263 (2001) . In determining whether the Court had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) in Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 159 (2001), the Court restated the principle set forth in Offiler - 7 - that its jurisdiction under that section depended upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely filed petition . Id . at 161 . According to the Court in Lunsford , "Our jurisdiction under section 6330 ( d)(1) * * * is established when there is a written notice that embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of the taxes in issue, and a timely file petition ."' Id . at 164 . In determining whether the Court had j indiction under section 6330(d)(1), the Court indicated in Lunsf d that there was " nothing in the notice of determination which leads us to conclude that the determination was invalid ." Id . a 165 . The Court held in Lunsford that it had jurisdiction over at case . id . Craig v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 252 (2002 ), the Court addressed whether it had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) where he Appeals Office had issued to the taxpayer a form decis Lon letter5 after the taxpayer had timely requested a hear- ing w . :h that office under section 6330 . The form decision lette involved in Craig stated that ( 1) the taxpayer did no t In Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 159, 164 (2001), the Court concluded that in determining whether the Court had jurisdicti under sec . 6330(d)(1) the nonjurisdictional provisions of sec . 30, such as the provisions relating to whether there was an ap opriate hearing opportunity, whether the hearing wa s condu ed properly, whether the hearing was fair, and whether the heari was conducted by an impartial Appeals officer, are not to be to in into consideration . 5IS~e supra note 3 . - 8 - timely request a hearing with the Appeals Office under section 6330, (2) the Appeals Office granted the taxpayer an equivalent hearing, (3) the Appeals Office concluded that it was sustaining the proposed collection action, and (4) the taxpayer was no t entitled to seek judicial review of the conclusions in that form letter . Id . at 256 . The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, however, acknowledged in Craig that the taxpayer did timely request a hearing with the Appeals Office under section 6330 . Id . at 253 . The Court held in Craig that "where Appeals issued the decision letter to * * * [the taxpayer] in response to * * * [the taxpayer's] timely request for a Hearing, * * * the 'deci- sion, reflected in the decision letter * * * is a 'determination' for purposes of section 6330(d)(1) ." Id . at 259 . In reaching that holding, the Court indicated in Craig tha t Although the Appeals officer concludes an equivalent hearing by issuing a decision letter, as opposed to a notice of determination, the different names which are assigned to these documents are merely a distinction without a difference when it comes to our jurisdiction over this case, where a Hearing was timely requested . * * * * * * The fact that respondent held with * * * [the taxpayer] a hearing labeled as an equivalent hearing, rather than a hearing labeled as a Hearing , and that respondent issued to petitioner a document labeled as a decision letter, rather than a document labeled as a notice of determination, does not erase the fact tha t * * * [the taxpayer] received a "determination" within the meaning of section 6330(d)(1) . * * * Id . at 258-259 . - 9 - In the instant case, the Appeals Office used a section 6330 Bete ination form letter when it notified petitioner in the Appe Is Office December 20, 2006 document of its conclusions rega ing her appeal with respect to the proposed levy action . As a result, the Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document was entitled "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING COLLECTION ACTION(S) UNDE SECTION 6320 and /or 6330 " and contained, inter alia, the foll 'ng boilerplate language : "If you want to dispute this deter 'nation in court, you must file a petition with the United State Tax Court within 30 days from the date of this letter ." Howev , the Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document also conta' ed the following statements that pertained to petitioner : (1) P :itioner did not timely request a hearing with the Appeals Offic with respect to the notice of intent to levy ; (2) the Appea Office granted petitioner an equivalent hearing with respect to that notice ; (3) the Appeals Office concluded that it was sustaining the proposed levy action ; and (4) petitioner was not e titled to seek judicial review of the conclusions in the Appea Office December 20, 2006 document . e Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document is internally incon 'stent .6 We must decide whether that document embodies a 6 like the Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document invol d in the instant case, the notice of determination involve in Lunsford v . Commissioner , supra , was not internally incon 'stent . In Lunsford , there was nothing in the notice o f (continued . . .) - 10 - determination under section 6330 . We cannot resolve that ques- tion on the basis of the Appeals Office's conclusion in the Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document that it was sustaining the proposed levy action . That is because a determination that the Appeals Office makes under section 6330 where the taxpayer timely requested a hearing under that section and a decision that the Appeals office makes where the taxpayer did not timely request a hearing under section 6330 both will indicate that the Appeals Office is sustaining the proposed collection action . See, e .g ., Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 159 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263 (2001) . Nor can we resolve whether the Appeals Office December 20, 2006 document embodies a determination under section 6330 on the basis of the Appeals Office's having sent to petitioner a section 6330 deter- mination form letter entitled " NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONCERNING COLLECTION ACTION ( S) UNDER SECTION 6320 and/or 6330 " . That is because the name or the label of a document does not contro l 6 ( . . . continued ) Id . at 165 . Similarly, the notice of determination involved there that led the Court to conclude that that notice was not valid . determination involved in Kim v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005-96, was not internally inconsistent . Like Lunsford and unlike the instant case, in Kim there was nothing in the notice of determination involved there that led the Court to conclude that that notice was not valid . In respondent's response as supplemented, respondent takes the position that Kim was wrongly decided . We need not address that position . That is because Kim is materially distinguishable from the instant case . - 11 - whet r the document embodies a determination under section 6330 . See ai v . Commissioner, 119 T .C . at 258-259 . e can, however, resolve whether the Appeals Office December 06 document embodies a determination under section 6330 on sis of the undisputed statement in that document tha t ner did not timely request a hearing with the Appeals Of f ic e under section 6330(b) with respect to the notice of inten t to 1 In determining whether the Court has jurisdictio n unde r ection 6330(d)(1), the Court must take into consideration the j isdictional provision in section 6330(b) prescribing the 30-da period within which a taxpayer must request a hearing with the A eals Office .' See Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . at 497-4 Because petitioner did not timely request a hearing with Appeals Office with respect to the notice of intent t o levy, hat office did not make a determination under sectio n 6330 . See id . at 497 . We hold that the Appeals Office Decembe r 0m document does not embody a determination under sectio n 6330 .11We further hold that the Appeals Office December 20, 200 6 titioner does not dispute, and the record independentl y estab shes, that petitioner did not timely request a hearing with e Appeals Office with respect to the notice of intent t o levy . e e instant case is thus unlike Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T . . 159 (2001) . In Lunsford , the Court indicated that the non'u sdictional provisions in sec . 6330 are not to be taken into nsideration in determining whether the Court has jurisdiction der sec . 6330(d)(1) . Id . at 164 . See supra note 4 . 12 - document is not a valid notice of determination under section 6330 that petitioner is entitled to appeal pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) . Accordingly, we hold that we do not have jurisdic- tion over this case . 9 To reflect the foregoing, An order making the Court's Show Cause Order absolute and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction will be entered . 90n June 6, 2007, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment . We shall deem that motion moot .