                                              CAROL DIANE GRAY, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER                                      OF
                                                      INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
                                                        Docket No. 27849–09L. 1                  Filed March 28, 2012.

                                                   R issued and mailed to P a notice of determination con-
                                                cerning collection actions under I.R.C. secs. 6320 and/or 6330,
                                                with respect to unpaid income taxes for 1992, 1993, 1994, and
                                                1995, on Oct. 16, 2009. The notice determined that a proposed
                                                lien and levy should be sustained. Although P had requested
                                                relief under I.R.C. sec. 6015 for the years in issue at her
                                                hearing, the notice was silent with respect thereto. Petitioner
                                                had previously requested I.R.C. sec. 6015 relief for the same
                                                years and received a final determination with respect thereto
                                                in 2000, for which she did not file a petition for review by this
                                                Court within 90 days. The notice of determination also stated
                                                that, with respect to P’s request for interest abatement, it had
                                                been determined that P was not eligible under I.R.C. sec.
                                                6404(e) for any abatement of interest. P’s petition seeking
                                                review of the notice of determination was received and filed
                                                by the Court on Nov. 23, 2009. The envelope containing the
                                                petition bore a legible U.S. postmark of Nov. 17, 2009. R
                                                moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that
                                                the petition was untimely.
                                                   1. Held: We lack jurisdiction under I.R.C. sec. 6330(d) to
                                                review the determination concerning the collection actions
                                                because the petition was not filed within 30 days of the deter-
                                                mination as required by I.R.C. sec. 6330(d)(1).
                                                   2. Held, further, further proceedings are necessary to deter-
                                                mine whether we have jurisdiction under I.R.C. sec.
                                                6015(e)(1)(A) to determine the appropriate relief available to
                                                petitioner under I.R.C. sec. 6015.
                                                   3. Held, further, the petition is timely for purposes of our
                                                jurisdiction under I.R.C. sec. 6404(h)(1) to review whether the
                                                failure to abate interest was an abuse of discretion, as it was
                                                filed less than 180 days after the notice of determination was
                                                mailed to P.

                                           Carol Diane Gray, pro se.
                                           Brett Saltzman, for respondent.



                                        1 This case was previously consolidated for purposes of disposition with the cases at docket

                                      Nos. 3260–08L and 27850–09L, concerning review of collection actions with respect to certain
                                      other taxable years of petitioner. Pursuant to orders entered on the date of this Opinion, the
                                      consolidation is eliminated and the cases at docket Nos. 3260–08L and 27850–09L are dismissed
                                      for lack of jurisdiction.


                                                                                                                                     295




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897    PO 20009   Frm 00001   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      296                 138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                                                                  OPINION

                                         GALE, Judge: The petition in this case seeks review of a
                                      Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)
                                      Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 2 issued by respondent’s
                                      Office of Appeals (Appeals). In the notice of determination
                                      Appeals determined both to sustain the proposed collection
                                      actions (a lien and a levy) and to reject petitioner’s request
                                      for an abatement of interest. The notice of determination was
                                      mailed on October 16, 2009. The envelope containing the
                                      petition bears a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark of
                                      November 17, 2009. The petition was received by the Court
                                      and filed on November 23, 2009.
                                         Respondent has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on
                                      the ground that the petition was untimely. We must decide
                                      whether the petition was timely with respect to our review
                                      of a collection action pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) and, if
                                      not, whether we have jurisdiction pursuant to sections 6015
                                      or 6404 to review the determination with respect to spousal
                                      relief or interest abatement.
                                         We hold that the petition was untimely with respect to our
                                      review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) of Appeals’ determina-
                                      tion to proceed with both collection actions; accordingly, we
                                      shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of juris-
                                      diction insofar as the collection actions that are the subject
                                      of the notice of determination are concerned. The record
                                      developed thus does not establish whether we have jurisdic-
                                      tion pursuant to section 6015(e) to determine the appropriate
                                      relief available to petitioner under section 6015. We shall
                                      therefore deny respondent’s motion insofar as petitioner’s
                                      claim for section 6015 relief is concerned. However, we fur-
                                      ther hold that the notice of determination contains a final
                                      determination not to abate interest. Consequently, the peti-
                                      tion constitutes a timely request for review pursuant to sec-
                                      tion 6404(h) of Appeals’ determination not to abate interest.
                                      Respondent’s motion will therefore be denied with respect to
                                      petitioner’s request for review of the failure to abate interest.


                                       2 Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

                                      amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00002   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      (295)                            GRAY v. COMMISSIONER                                        297


                                                                                Background
                                         The following has been stipulated or is not in dispute. Peti-
                                      tioner resided in Illinois when she filed her petition.
                                         On October 16, 2009, Appeals issued and sent to petitioner
                                      by certified mail a Notice of Determination Concerning
                                      Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 con-
                                      cerning a lien and a levy to collect unpaid income taxes for
                                      1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. The notice of determination
                                      rejected any collection alternatives and sustained the lien
                                      and levy. The notice of determination also analyzed peti-
                                      tioner’s request for abatement of tax, interest, and additions
                                      to tax.
                                         On the basis of substantiation of certain business expenses
                                      petitioner submitted, the notice of determination abated a
                                      portion of the tax for 1992 and 1993. In addition, in the
                                      description of issues petitioner raised, the notice of deter-
                                      mination acknowledged that petitioner had submitted a
                                      request for interest and ‘‘penalty’’ abatement as part of her
                                      CDP hearing: ‘‘While your case was pending in Appeals, you
                                      also submitted a request for abatement of interest and pen-
                                      alties.’’ After summarizing the grounds she had advanced for
                                      interest and ‘‘penalty’’ abatement, the notice of determination
                                      concluded that petitioner had shown reasonable cause and
                                      that the additions to tax for all years would be abated. 3 With
                                      respect to interest abatement, the notice of determination
                                      stated: ‘‘A review of your request for abatement shows that
                                      there is no basis for interest abatement, based on the criteria
                                      shown in IRC section 6404(e)’’ and that ‘‘It was determined
                                      that the conditions of IRC section 6404(e) with regard to
                                      abatement of interest were not met.’’
                                         Petitioner filed a petition in this Court in which she
                                      checked the box indicating that she was disputing a ‘‘Notice
                                      of Determination Concerning Collection Action’’ and attached
                                      the notice of determination. The envelope that contained the
                                      petition bore a USPS postmark of November 17, 2009. The
                                      petition was received and filed by the Court on November 23,
                                      2009. The petition disputed the notice of determination and,
                                      among the reasons for the dispute, cited an Internal Revenue
                                        3 On October 22, 2009, the settlement officer who conducted petitioner’s sec. 6330 hearing

                                      issued her a separate letter stating that the additions to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2) had
                                      been abated in full.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00003   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      298                 138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                      Service (IRS) employee’s erroneous representation to peti-
                                      tioner that she owed no income tax for her 1992–95 taxable
                                      years.
                                         Respondent subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack
                                      of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed
                                      within the 30-day period prescribed by sections 6320 and
                                      6330(d) for appealing determinations concerning collection
                                      actions. Petitioner objected, the Court conducted a hearing on
                                      the motion, and the parties filed briefs thereafter.

                                                                                 Discussion
                                      Jurisdiction Generally
                                        The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442,
                                      and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly
                                      authorized by Congress, Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C.
                                      109, 112 (2006); Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.
                                      879, 880–881 (1983). Questions of jurisdiction are funda-
                                      mental, and whenever it appears that this Court may lack
                                      jurisdiction that question must be addressed. Wheeler’s
                                      Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 179
                                      (1960). We have jurisdiction to determine whether we have
                                      jurisdiction. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 112; Estate
                                      of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. at 880–881; Brannon’s of
                                      Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999, 1002 (1978).
                                        All claims in a petition should be broadly construed so as
                                      to do substantial justice, and a petition filed by a pro se liti-
                                      gant should be liberally construed. See Rule 31(d); Haines v.
                                      Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Lukovsky v. Commissioner,
                                      T.C. Memo. 2010–117; Med. Practice Solutions, LLC v.
                                      Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009–214; Swope v. Commis-
                                      sioner, T.C. Memo. 1990–82. Accordingly, we must consider
                                      whether the petition, liberally construed, sets out a claim
                                      over which we have jurisdiction.
                                      Jurisdiction To Review the Collection Action Determination
                                        It is a straightforward proposition that the petition sought
                                      to invoke our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) to review
                                      the determinations in the notice of determination to proceed
                                      with collection. Petitioner checked the box on the petition
                                      indicating that she was disputing a ‘‘Notice of Determination
                                      Concerning Collection Action’’ and attached the notice of




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00004   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      (295)                            GRAY v. COMMISSIONER                                        299


                                      determination. The notice of determination notes that peti-
                                      tioner sought a hearing under sections 6320 and 6330 and
                                      states a determination to proceed with two collection actions
                                      (a lien and a levy). The problem for petitioner is that an
                                      appeal of a collection determination under section 6330(d)(1)
                                      must be made ‘‘within 30 days of a determination’’. The
                                      notice of determination is dated October 16, 2009, and was
                                      sent by certified mail to petitioner on that date. Thirty days
                                      thereafter was November 15, 2009, which was a Sunday.
                                      Pursuant to section 7503, the last day for filing an appeal of
                                      the collection determination was therefore the next day,
                                      Monday, November 16, 2009 (which was not a legal holiday).
                                      The petition was received by the Court and filed on
                                      November 23, 2009. Although under section 7502 the date of
                                      a legible USPS postmark is treated as the date of delivery
                                      when actual delivery occurs beyond the date required for
                                      filing, see, e.g., Shipley v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 212, 213–
                                      214 (9th Cir. 1977), aff ’g T.C. Memo. 1976–383; sec.
                                      301.7502–1(c)(1)(iii), Proced. & Admin. Regs., section 7502
                                      does not help petitioner here because the USPS postmark on
                                      the envelope containing the petition is November 17, 2009.
                                         Our jurisdiction to review a collection action determination
                                      under section 6330(d)(1) depends upon the issuance of a valid
                                      notice of determination and a timely petition for review.
                                      Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 165 (2001). The 30-
                                      day period provided in section 6330(d)(1) for the filing of a
                                      petition for review is jurisdictional and cannot be extended;
                                      this Court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction any case in
                                      which a petition for review is deemed filed more than 30
                                      days after the notice of determination is issued. McCune v.
                                      Commissioner, 115 T.C. 114, 117 (2000). Since the petition
                                      was not filed, or treated as filed, within the statutorily pre-
                                      scribed period, we lack jurisdiction to review the determina-
                                      tion to proceed with the collection actions in the notice of
                                      determination.
                                      Petitioner’s Contentions
                                         Petitioner contends that she had 90 days to appeal the
                                      notice of determination because it included determinations
                                      modifying the underlying tax liabilities for 1992–95. In peti-
                                      tioner’s view, because her underlying tax liabilities were




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00005   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      300                   138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                      addressed in the notice of determination, she is entitled to
                                      the same 90-day period to appeal the determination as is
                                      generally allowed for the filing of a petition for redetermina-
                                      tion of a deficiency pursuant to section 6213(a).
                                         Petitioner is mistaken. The statutory scheme of section
                                      6330 clearly contemplates that the underlying tax liability
                                      may be challenged in designated circumstances in a section
                                      6330 proceeding and requires the determination to consider
                                      such a challenge when properly made. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B),
                                      (3)(B). 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).
                                         Petitioner also argues that, because the notice determined
                                      that the additions to tax for 1992–95 should be abated and
                                      the settlement officer issued a separate letter notifying her
                                      of the abatement on October 22, 2009, she has 30 days from
                                      the date of the separate letter to appeal the notice of deter-
                                      mination.
                                         Petitioner’s contention is meritless. In contrast to the case
                                      of interest abatement determinations, section 6404 confers no
                                      ‘‘stand-alone’’ jurisdiction on the Tax Court to review the
                                      Commissioner’s determinations to abate penalties. See sec.
                                      6404(h)(1). However, the Court’s jurisdiction under section
                                      6330(d)(1) to review determinations concerning a taxpayer’s
                                      underlying tax liability does reach a determination to abate
                                      a penalty where the penalty forms part of the underlying tax
                                      liability. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 339 (2000).
                                      That jurisdiction is dependent upon the penalty’s forming a
                                      part of the unpaid tax that the Commissioner is seeking to
                                      collect. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 6–
                                      7 (2006); Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004–152.
                                      Respondent’s determinations concerning petitioner’s liability
                                      for the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax for 1992–
                                      95, insofar as the additions affected the proposed collection
                                      actions, were made in the notice of determination under sec-
                                      tion 6330 issued on October 16, 2009. By contrast, the ‘‘pen-
                                      alty’’ letter of October 22, 2009, makes no reference to section
                                      6330 or to any collection action. 4 Consequently, the ‘‘penalty’’
                                           4 The   October 22, 2009, letter would appear to have been issued in compliance with the Inter-




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013    Jkt 372897    PO 20009   Frm 00006   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      (295)                            GRAY v. COMMISSIONER                                        301


                                      letter cannot reasonably be construed to constitute a deter-
                                      mination regarding a collection action that would confer
                                      jurisdiction on this Court under section 6330(d)(1) if appealed
                                      within 30 days. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at
                                      164 (our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) is established
                                      ‘‘when there is a written notice that embodies a determina-
                                      tion to proceed with the collection of * * * taxes * * * and
                                      a timely filed petition’’). 5
                                      Jurisdiction Under Section 6015
                                         Petitioner also contends that she requested spousal relief
                                      under section 6015 during her section 6330 hearing, entitling
                                      her to 90 days, rather than 30 days, from the mailing of the
                                      notice of determination to petition the Tax Court for review.
                                      See Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193–194 (2002)
                                      (holding that a petition seeking review of a denial of spousal
                                      relief in a section 6330 proceeding is timely if filed within the
                                      period provided in section 6015(e)(1)). The notice of deter-
                                      mination is silent with respect to any spousal relief claim.
                                      However, on the basis of a case activity record which peti-
                                      tioner has submitted to the Court, the authenticity of which
                                      respondent does not dispute, we are satisfied that petitioner
                                      requested section 6015 relief with respect to the years in
                                      issue. The case activity record states: ‘‘The taxpayer * * *
                                      wants to be determined an innocent spouse for 1992–95. Her
                                      innocent spouse request was denied and she has exhausted
                                      her appeal rights.’’
                                         In Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 194, the tax-
                                      payer had raised a spousal defense in a section 6330 hearing,
                                      and the notice of determination included a determination
                                      that the taxpayer was not entitled to relief under section
                                      6015. In those circumstances, we held that the petition, filed
                                      more than 30 days after the issuance of the notice of deter-
                                      mination, was nonetheless timely for purposes of conferring
                                      jurisdiction on this Court to determine the appropriate relief
                                      under section 6015 because it had been filed within 90 days
                                      nal Revenue Manual’s directive that Appeals issue a closing letter to the taxpayer when a ‘‘pen-
                                      alty’’ abatement request has been granted in full. See Internal Revenue Manual pt. 8.11.1.5.3
                                      (Apr. 13, 2010).
                                         5 Even if the ‘‘penalty’’ letter were somehow construed as a determination concerning a collec-

                                      tion action, we would lack jurisdiction due to mootness as the taxes (i.e., the additions to tax)
                                      that are the subject of the letter were abated and respondent is not seeking to collect them.
                                      See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 6–7 (2006).




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00007   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      302                 138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                      of the mailing of the notice of determination. ‘‘The timeliness
                                      of the petition, insofar as it seeks review of the administra-
                                      tive denial of section 6015 relief, is, therefore, dependent
                                      upon section 6015(e)(1).’’ 6
                                         Here, petitioner raised a spousal defense at her section
                                      6330 hearing, but the notice of determination is silent with
                                      respect thereto. The petition can be reasonably construed as
                                      alleging a spousal defense. 7 Given the silence of the notice
                                      of determination the petition may be timely for jurisdictional
                                      purposes under section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II), which authorizes
                                      a petition and confers jurisdiction on this Court where a
                                      request for equitable relief under section 6015(f) has been
                                      made 8 and there has been no final determination with
                                      respect to the request within six months. However, petitioner
                                      admits in her opening brief that she previously sought sec-
                                      tion 6015 relief with respect to the years 1992 through 1995,
                                      that she received a final determination with respect thereto
                                      in 2000, and that she did not petition for Tax Court review
                                      of that determination. The entry in the case activity record
                                      previously quoted likewise suggests that the Appeals officer
                                      was aware of the previous denial.
                                         Section 1.6015–5(c)(1), Income Tax Regs., generally pro-
                                      vides that a requesting spouse is entitled to only one final
                                      administrative determination of relief under section 6015 for
                                      a given assessment, unless the requesting spouse’s status as
                                      married to or cohabiting with the nonrequesting spouse
                                      changes between the first and second request for relief. In
                                      Barnes v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 248 (2008), we held that
                                      a second request for section 6015(f) relief from an under-
                                      payment that was essentially duplicative of an earlier
                                      request for which a final determination had been issued did
                                      not confer jurisdiction on this Court under section
                                      6015(e)(1)(A). We expressly reserved ruling, however, on the
                                      question of ‘‘whether a second request for relief that is based
                                         6 We note that the Secretary adheres to the same position in the regulations. See sec.

                                      301.6330–1(f)(2), Q&A–F2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
                                         7 The petition alleges that errors in the returns filed for the years in issue were attributable

                                      to ‘‘incorrect information given to the accountant by my ex-spouse.’’ We construe the petition,
                                      filed by a pro se litigant, broadly. See Rule 31(d); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972);
                                      Lukovsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010–117.
                                         8 As no deficiency had been asserted against her, but instead the tax for each year in issue

                                      was reported as due but not paid, petitioner was eligible to request equitable relief under sec.
                                      6015(f) at her sec. 6330 hearing, but she was not eligible to elect the application of sec. 6015(b)
                                      or (c). See sec. 6015(e)(1); Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 88 (2003).




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00008   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      (295)                            GRAY v. COMMISSIONER                                        303


                                      on grounds or facts sufficiently dissimilar from those under-
                                      lying the first request for relief might revive the right to peti-
                                      tion for review by this Court.’’ Barnes v. Commissioner, 130
                                      T.C. at 254 n.6.
                                         Respondent’s motion to dismiss does not address the fact
                                      that petitioner raised a spousal defense at her section 6330
                                      hearing. The motion simply contends that the petition is
                                      untimely because it was not filed within the 30-day period
                                      provided in section 6330(d)(1), without taking into account
                                      Raymond, Barnes, or section 1.6015–5(c)(1), Income Tax
                                      Regs. On the basis of the record developed thus far, we are
                                      unable to determine whether the claim for relief petitioner
                                      raised at her section 6330 hearing is ‘‘sufficiently dissimilar’’
                                      from the claim for which she received a final determination
                                      in 2000 that we would have jurisdiction over the former not-
                                      withstanding the holding in Barnes. Because we have juris-
                                      diction to determine whether we have jurisdiction, we con-
                                      clude that respondent’s motion to dismiss must be denied
                                      insofar as it concerns petitioner’s claim for relief under sec-
                                      tion 6015 for the years 1992 through 1995. Further pro-
                                      ceedings are necessary to determine whether jurisdiction
                                      exists.
                                      Jurisdiction Under Section 6404
                                        Because we lack jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) and
                                      our jurisdiction under section 6015(e) is uncertain, we con-
                                      sider whether the petition states an independent claim for
                                      jurisdiction under section 6404. Petitioner argues that
                                      because she requested an abatement of interest under section
                                      6404 with respect to years 1992 through 1995, she has 180
                                      days under section 6404(h)(1) from the mailing of the deter-
                                      mination denying abatement to appeal it. Respondent con-
                                      tends that ‘‘the fact that a taxpayer raises the issue of
                                      interest abatement during her CDP hearing is irrelevant to
                                      the true nature of the proceeding’’; that is, as a section 6330
                                      proceeding in which a determination must be appealed
                                      within 30 days.
                                      Final Determination Not To Abate Interest
                                        We consider first respondent’s preliminary argument that
                                      there was ‘‘no determination as to abatement of interest




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00009   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      304                 138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                      * * * made within the CDP hearing or without it’’ and that
                                      ‘‘Petitioner was never issued a Notice of Determination or
                                      Notice of Disallowance in connection with an interest abate-
                                      ment proceeding.’’ We disagree. The notice of determination
                                      issued to petitioner in connection with her section 6330
                                      hearing states: ‘‘A review of your request for abatement
                                      shows that there is no basis for interest abatement, based on
                                      the criteria shown in IRC section 6404(e)’’ and that ‘‘It was
                                      determined that the conditions of IRC section 6404(e) with
                                      regard to the abatement of interest were not met.’’ The notice
                                      of determination satisfies us that petitioner made a request
                                      for interest abatement under section 6404(e) during her sec-
                                      tion 6330 hearing and that Appeals made a determination to
                                      deny it.
                                         To the extent respondent may be suggesting that there was
                                      no determination denying interest abatement because it did
                                      not occur in connection with a stand-alone request for
                                      interest abatement under section 6404 or because it was not
                                      made on a Letter 3180, Final Determination Letter for Fully
                                      Disallowing an Interest Abatement Claim, his contention is
                                      meritless. Our jurisdiction to review denials of section 6404
                                      interest abatement requests made in section 6330 pro-
                                      ceedings is well established. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115
                                      T.C. at 340–341; Kuykendall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
                                      2008–277; Joye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002–14.
                                      Regarding the form in which the determination was made, as
                                      we recently observed in Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70,
                                      75 (2010): ‘‘the name or label of a document does not control
                                      whether the document constitutes a determination * * * our
                                      jurisdiction is established when the Commissioner issues a
                                      written notice that embodies a determination.’’ See also
                                      Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 164. This principle is
                                      well illustrated in Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252
                                      (2002), where we held that a decision letter issued in connec-
                                      tion with an equivalent hearing provided pursuant to section
                                      301.6330–1(c)(2), Q&A–C7, Proced. & Admin. Regs., was a
                                      determination conferring jurisdiction on this Court, notwith-
                                      standing that the decision letter purported not to do so.
                                         Here, the notice of determination was written and
                                      embodied a determination that petitioner was not entitled to
                                      any interest abatement under section 6404(e). The notice
                                      fairly indicates that the settlement officer gave ‘‘consider-




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00010   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      (295)                            GRAY v. COMMISSIONER                                        305


                                      ation to whether it would be appropriate to abate an assess-
                                      ment of interest’’. Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20, 26
                                      (1998). Respondent has not suggested any basis for con-
                                      cluding that the determination was not intended to resolve
                                      petitioner’s request for interest abatement or was not final,
                                      as required in section 6404(h)(1), and we see none. Accord-
                                      ingly, we conclude that the notice of determination embodied
                                      a final determination not to abate interest as contemplated
                                      in section 6404(h)(1).
                                      Independent Jurisdiction Under Section 6404(h)
                                         Because petitioner requested an abatement of interest in
                                      connection with her section 6330 hearing, the notice of deter-
                                      mination included a determination not to abate interest
                                      under section 6404(e), and the petition seeks our review of
                                      that determination, we conclude that the notice and petition
                                      confer jurisdiction under section 6404(h) that is independent
                                      of section 6330. See Rule 31(d); Wright v. Commissioner, 571
                                      F.3d 215, 219–220 (2d Cir. 2009), vacating and remanding
                                      T.C. Memo. 2006–273; Kaufman v. Commissioner, T.C.
                                      Memo. 2010–89. Insofar as the petition seeks review under
                                      section 6404(h) of the failure to abate interest, it is timely for
                                      jurisdictional purposes because it was filed within 180 days
                                      of the final determination not to abate interest. See sec.
                                      6404(h)(1); cf. Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 194
                                      (timeliness of petition filed after section 6330 proceeding,
                                      insofar as it seeks review of denial of section 6015 relief, is
                                      dependent upon section 6015(e)(1)). We follow the principle
                                      applied in Raymond: since the claim under section 6404, like
                                      a claim under section 6015, carries a more specific grant of
                                      jurisdiction for Tax Court review than that provided in sec-
                                      tion 6330(d)(1), the more specific grant of jurisdiction con-
                                      trols the timeliness of the petition as to the section 6404
                                      claim. We therefore hold that the petition is timely for pur-
                                      poses of conferring jurisdiction on this Court pursuant to sec-
                                      tion 6404(h)(1) to determine whether the failure to abate
                                      interest with respect to petitioner’s 1992–95 taxable years
                                      was an abuse of discretion.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00011   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
                                      306                 138 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                      (295)


                                      Conclusion
                                         We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of
                                      jurisdiction insofar as review of the collection actions in the
                                      notice of determination is concerned. Accordingly, the collec-
                                      tion actions at issue may proceed. We shall deny respond-
                                      ent’s motion insofar as the petition seeks our determination
                                      of the appropriate relief available under section 6015 and our
                                      review of the determination not to abate interest. Further
                                      proceedings are necessary to decide whether we have juris-
                                      diction under section 6015(e)(1)(A), whether petitioner may
                                      maintain an action under section 6404, 9 and, if so, whether
                                      the determination not to abate was an abuse of discretion. To
                                      reflect the foregoing,
                                                                                 An appropriate order will be issued.

                                                                               f




                                         9 Respondent’s motion addresses the timeliness of the petition and has not challenged peti-

                                      tioner’s satisfaction of the so-called net worth requirements of sec. 6404(h)(1) as referenced in
                                      sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii). See Estate of Kunze v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999–344, aff ’d, 233 F.3d
                                      948 (7th Cir. 2000).




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   10:40 Jun 06, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00012   Fmt 3851   Sfmt 3851   V:\FILES\GRAY.138   SHEILA
