Notice Mailed to Address Shared with Other Businesses Started 30-day Filing Deadline

(Parker Tax Publishing February 2021)

The Tax Court held that a notice of intent to levy that was mailed by the IRS to a taxpayer's actual (and last known) address by certified mail, return receipt requested, started the running of the 30-day period under Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and (3) to request a collection due process hearing even though the taxpayer's address was shared by multiple businesses and the USPS left the notice at that address with a person who was neither the taxpayer's employee nor authorized to receive mail on the taxpayer's behalf. The court also concluded that the taxpayer's request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 was untimely and absent a determination by IRS Appeals, the Tax Court had no jurisdiction under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) to consider the taxpayer's petition to review the IRS Appeals decision. Ramey v. Comm'r, 156 T.C. No. 1 (2021).

The IRS mailed to Wiley Ramey's actual (and last known) address by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice of intent to levy for the tax years 2012 to 2016 (the "Notice"). The Notice informed Ramey of his right to seek a collection due process hearing under Code Sec. 6330 within 30 days after the date of the Notice.

Ramey had the same address as several businesses. Three days after he mailed the Notice, the United States Postal Service (USPS) left the Notice at Ramey's address with a person who was neither Ramey's employee nor authorized to receive mail on Ramey's behalf. The Notice eventually reached Ramey shortly before the 30-day deadline, but Ramey did not submit his request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 until after that deadline. Accordingly, the IRS Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals) treated Ramey's request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 as untimely and provided instead an equivalent hearing under Reg. Sec. 301.6330-1(i)(1). After the equivalent hearing, IRS Appeals issued a decision letter sustaining the Notice.

Ramey petitioned the Tax Court seeking review of IRS Appeals' decision and the IRS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The IRS argued that, because Ramey's request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 was untimely, he forfeited his right to such a hearing and IRS Appeals properly issued no notice of determination concerning the IRS's collection action. The IRS also argued that, absent a notice of determination, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Before the Tax Court, Ramey maintained that his request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 was timely because the IRS's service of the Notice did not comply with Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and therefore did not trigger the 30-day period under Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and (3).

The Tax Court held that the IRS's mailing of the Notice to Ramey's actual (and last known) address by certified mail, return receipt requested, started the running of the 30-day period under Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and (3) even though Ramey's address was shared by multiple businesses and the USPS left the Notice at that address with a person who was neither Ramey's employee nor authorized to receive mail on Ramey's behalf. The court noted that Ramey's chief complaint appeared to be that multiple businesses used the same address as he did, so mail might be accepted by the wrong person. But, even if that were so, the court said, Ramey did not explain how the IRS could have taken this fact into account. Ramey, the court observed, was free to organize his business affairs as he saw appropriate, including by choosing to share a business address with other businesses. But, the court concluded, having made that choice, and having provided to the IRS an address shared by multiple businesses, Ramey was not entitled to complain when the IRS used that very address to reach him. In short, the court said, the IRS correctly followed one of the methods of service provided by the statute, thereby starting the 30-day period for seeking a hearing under Code Sec. 6330(a)(3)(B). The fact that Ramey's address was used by multiple businesses and that the USPS left the notice with a person at that address who neither worked for Ramey nor was authorized to receive mail on his behalf did not change the court's conclusion.

The court further held that Ramey's request for a hearing under Code Sec. 6330 was untimely under Code Sec. 6330(a)(2) and (3), and IRS Appeals properly issued no notice of determination concerning IRS's collection action. The court also found that, absent a determination by IRS Appeals, it had no jurisdiction under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) to consider Ramey's Tax Court petition.

For a discussion of IRS collection procedures and levies, see Parker Tax ¶260,540.

Disclaimer: This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Parker Tax Publishing guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. Parker Tax Publishing assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein.

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution. www.parkertaxpublishing.com

We hope you find our professional tax research articles comprehensive and informative. Parker Tax Pro Library gives you unlimited online access all of our past Biweekly Tax Bulletins, 22 volumes of expert analysis, 250 Client Letters, Bob Jennings Practice Aids, time saving election statements and our comprehensive, fully updated primary source library.

Try Our Easy, Powerful Search Engine

A Professional Tax Research Solution that gives you instant access to 22 volumes of expert analysis and 185,000 authoritative source documents. But having access won’t help if you can’t quickly and easily find the materials that answer your questions. That’s where Parker’s search engine – and it’s uncanny knack for finding the right documents – comes into play

Things that take half a dozen steps in other products take two steps in ours. Search results come up instantly and browsing them is a cinch. So is linking from Parker’s analysis to practice aids and cited primary source documents. Parker’s powerful, user-friendly search engine ensures that you quickly find what you need every time you visit Our Tax Research Library.

Dear Tax Professional,

My name is James Levey, and a few years back I founded a company named Kleinrock Publishing. I started Kleinrock out of frustration with the prohibitively high prices and difficult search engines of BNA, CCH, and RIA tax research products ... kind of reminiscent of the situation practitioners face today.

Now that Kleinrock has disappeared into CCH, prices are soaring again and ease-of-use has fallen by the wayside. The needs of smaller firms and sole practitioners are simply not being met.

To address the problem, I’ve partnered with a group of highly talented tax writers to create Parker Tax Publishing ... a company dedicated to the idea that comprehensive, authoritative tax information service can be both easy-to-use and highly affordable.

Our product, the Parker Tax Pro Library, is breathtaking in its scope. Check out the contents listing to the left to get a sense of all the valuable material you'll have access to when you subscribe.

Or better yet, take a minute to sign yourself up for a free trial, so you can experience first-hand just how easy it is to get results with the Pro Library!

Sincerely,

James Levey

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution. www.parkertaxpublishing.com