Judge Courtney D (“CD”) Jones, responding to an IRS motion to clarify her order in William J. Cade and Mary E. Cade, Docket No. 7723-23L, filed 1/25/24, discusses the engrafting of Section 6330(c) (NITL) procedure onto Section 6320 (NFTL) practice.

Judge CD Jones does so in the context of an IRS motion to clarify her remand to Appeals.

IRS repeats essayist and raconteur Harry Golden’s anecdote, manty-times-told in this my blog, but always worthy of repetition.

Here it is from its first iteration, “Vot Did She Set?” 6/25/13:

“The late essayist and raconteur Harry Golden told the story of an immigrant who, after many years, finally attained US citizenship. Triumphantly forsaking his native tongue, he spoke only broken English thereafter, affecting to understand no other. Even when his wife would address him in their native tongue, he would turn to his US-born children and ask them “Vot did she set?” Thereupon his wife would bombard him with choice language.”

No rude language from Judge CD Jones, of course, but Her Honor thought her order was clear enough. She’d ordered a remand per both Section 6320 and Section 6330. IRS says this is a petition from a NFTL CDP; there never was a Section 6330 NITL.

“The Court is troubled by the lack of a clear record in this case, including whether petitioners received a notice of deficiency for the tax years at issue. The Court also notes that section 6320 incorporates portions of section 6330 with respect to the conduct of hearings. See § 6320(c) (incorporating certain procedural provisions of section 6330); see also Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 334 (2000) (observing that section 6320(c) incorporates certain procedural rules set forth in section 6330). Thus, it is not evident that clarification of the Court’s Order is necessary.” Order, at p. 2.

But just in case IRS is still befuddled, “… the Court agrees that jurisdiction in this case is based, in part,  on a Notice of Determination that sustains a Notice of Federal Tax Lien under section 6320. As a result, it appears that the Court would lack jurisdiction to order Appeals to hold a section 6330 hearing. See Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021) (observing that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely petition). Thus, to the extent clarification is necessary, the Court will grant respondent’s motion.” Order, at p. 2.

For Wiley Ramey’s story, see my blogpost “We Don’t Need No Authority,” 1/14/21.

So this is a Section 6320 case.