## Facts

- A prior Tax Court deficiency case for tax year 1992 ended in a stipulated decision determining a $10,195 income tax deficiency, no penalties, and interest “as provided by law,” with the taxpayer waiving the I.R.C. § 6213(a) assessment restrictions.
- The IRS asserted it assessed the deficiency and sent a balance-due notice reflecting $14,514.53; the taxpayer disputed receiving the notice and made no payment at that time.
- In 2000, the IRS issued a levy-warning notice (Form CP-504) stating the 1992 balance had grown to $23,805.53.
- The taxpayer paid $14,514.53 in July 2000 (the amount reflected as the 1997 balance).
- The IRS later issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy for 1992 and advised of the right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under I.R.C. § 6330.
- After Appeals sustained the proposed levy, the IRS issued a Notice of Determination, and the taxpayer petitioned the Tax Court under I.R.C. § 6330(d).
- The petition challenged the timeliness of the 1992 assessment, disputed interest accruals, and sought a refund of amounts paid on the 1992 account.
- While the case was pending, the IRS applied the taxpayer’s 1999 overpayment to the 1992 liability under I.R.C. § 6402(a), eliminating the 1992 balance due.
- The taxpayer amended her petition to seek additional refund relief and to contest matters related to the 1992 and 1999 accounts.
- The IRS conceded there was no remaining 1992 liability and represented that no further collection action would be taken, then moved to dismiss the CDP case as moot.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 6330 CDP challenge to a proposed levy becomes moot when the underlying liability is fully satisfied and no levy will occur.
2. Whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction in a § 6330(d) collection review case to determine an overpayment or order a refund or credit.

## Decision

- The Tax Court held the levy dispute was moot because there was no unpaid 1992 liability on which a levy could be based and no further collection action would be pursued.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction in the § 6330 proceeding to determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit.
- The case was dismissed as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Tax Court jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1)(A) extends only “with respect to” the matter addressed in the CDP Notice of Determination—i.e., the propriety of the challenged collection action.
- When the IRS concedes the liability is fully satisfied and collection will not proceed, there is no live controversy for § 6330(d) review, and the case must be dismissed as moot.
- I.R.C. § 6330 does not provide express authority for the Tax Court to determine overpayments or to order refunds or credits in a CDP collection review case.
- The absence of refund/overpayment language in § 6330 is contrasted with provisions that expressly confer such authority in other contexts (e.g., I.R.C. § 6512(b) in deficiency cases).

## Conclusion

The Tax Court dismissed the CDP levy case after the IRS satisfied the liability through an offset and agreed not to collect further, and it ruled that § 6330(d) does not grant the court jurisdiction to determine overpayments or to order refunds or credits in a collection review proceeding.


Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006)