# Lunsford v. Comm'r

> United States Tax Court · November 30, 2001 · 117 T.C. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4474154

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSEPH D. AND WANDA S. LUNSFORD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** November 30, 2001
- **Citations:** 117 T.C. 183; 117 T.C. No. 17; 2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 49
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Colvin
- **Judges:** "Ruwe, Robert P.","Halpern, James S.","Colvin, John O.",Laro,"Foley, Maurice B."
- **Cited by:** 439 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4474154

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, without explicit consideration of section 7521(a)(1
- declining to remand collection review case to Appeals officer when the Court can evaluate the merits of the taxpayer's arguments without a remand

## Opinion text

Colvin, J., dissenting: I voted yes in Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159 (2001), because I believe our jurisdiction in that case is provided by the notice of determination. However, I dissent here because I believe the fact that we have jurisdiction does not relieve respondent of the duty to provide an opportunity for a hearing as required by section 6330(b).
Because we have jurisdiction, if we had required respondent to provide an opportunity to petitioner to have a hearing, we could have then concluded the case by using whatever procedure is appropriate (e.g., a trial or dispositive motion) without requiring the taxpayer to file a new petition.
Gale, J., agrees with this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4474154. Public record. Not legal advice.