Opinion
12064-20L
06-25-2021
Steve Chiliang Ou, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Courtney D. Jones, Judge.
This case is scheduled for trial at the remote trial session of the Court scheduled to commence at San Antonio, Texas, on September 27, 2021. The petition in this case, filed October 5, 2020, arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark dated October 1, 2020. A Decision Letter on Equivalent Hearing Under Internal Revenue Code 6320 and/or 6330 (Decision Letter) was attached to the petition and is dated August 3, 2020. Among other things, the Decision Letter indicates that petitioner did not timely request a collection due process (CDP) hearing and that he could only petition this Court for review of the decision if he could show that his request for a CDP hearing was in fact timely.
Under section 6330(d)(1), a taxpayer may petition this Court for review of a determination made pursuant to a CDP hearing within 30 days of such determination. Generally, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review decisions concerning equivalent hearings, which are conducted in cases where the taxpayer did not timely request a CDP hearing from the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals). See Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C., (slip op. at 15-18) (Jan. 14, 2021). However, this Court has previously held that a decision from an equivalent hearing is a determination for purposes of section 6330(d)(1) if Appeals erred in concluding that a taxpayer's request for a CDP hearing was untimely. Id.
Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
Petitioner does not allege in his petition that respondent erred in concluding that his request for a CDP hearing was untimely. Moreover, even if the Decision Letter were to be treated as a determination for purposes of section 6330(d)(1), more than 30 days elapsed from the date of the Decision Letter and the filing of the petition.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before July 27, 2021, petitioner shall file a response to this Order showing cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.