[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
that Judge Henderson will not be sitting with us today.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
She'll take it on the recording.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
She'll take it on recordings.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Case number 16.

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
Is this adjusted correctly?

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
You can hear me?

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
Yes, thank you.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
The main issue in this case is a question of pure law.

[00:00:40] Speaker 02:
When the mail date and the notice date do not match, which one controls?

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
In this case, they're different because the revenue officer refused to follow mandatory procedure to ensure that the taxpayer, my client, received notice of the correct 30-day period.

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
Applying an undisclosed mail date when the taxpayer is given a different notice date and is told to use that different notice date goes against everything the statute 6330 stands for.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
The name of the hearing at issue is due process hearing.

[00:01:14] Speaker 02:
Fundamentally, due process requires notice and opportunity.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
There's no notice if the taxpayer is given the wrong starting date.

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
The statute was enacted specifically to protect taxpayer rights and curb IRS abuses.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
And that's typically to give them the more expansive right, right?

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
The larger hearing, the hearing that gives you more process, gives you right to appeal.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
And that wasn't denied him here, right?

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
He doesn't want that, right?

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
Let me unpackage that question.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
I mean, what I'm getting at is the statute and the regulations are written and typically construed to be more generous to the taxpayer, to give them more time rather than less time.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
But you want less time here, which is odd.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
Two things that you just said.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
The last one that we want less time is not true.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Let me unpack the first part.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
the statute sets forth a collection due process hearing.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
And you're right.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
Specifically, the congressional attempt behind the statute specifically was to give taxpayers, to protect taxpayer rights and curb virus abuses.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
The regulation that implemented it set forth a second parallel hearing called an equivalent hearing.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
So you have two rights, the collection due process hearing and the equivalent hearing.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
A taxpayer applies for them on the same form.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
Form 12153.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
There is a box to check if you want the equivalent hearing.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
There is a box to check if you want the equivalent hearing.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
Am I not correct?

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
There is a box on the form, but by regulation.

[00:02:50] Speaker 03:
And your client did not check the box, right?

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
It is true that he did not check the box.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
It is also true that under the regulation, that's irrelevant.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
If you're late, if you request a hearing beyond 30 days, poof, by law, by regulations, crystal clear, you don't get a collection due process hearing.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
you get an equivalent hearing.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
And the regulation requires, there's a requirement of the regulation, that the IRS offer an equivalent hearing to a taxpayer who happened to request a hearing after 30 days.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
In this case, my client was never offered that equivalent hearing.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
The IRS did not fulfill the regulation.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
So back to my point, telling a taxpayer that he has a particular 30-day window, but then secretly, unknowingly to the taxpayer, applying a different 30-day window.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
Didn't your taxpayer say here that he wanted to come outside the town?

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
correct and under the regulation he had that right he had the right to request an equivalent hearing he meant to be untimely and we're here because the IRS says he failed to be untimely when he meant to be is that am I not correct in there yeah it's a funny double negative he meant to be untimely and we're here because the IRS said no you're not untimely yes so the idea that he was surprised by

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
The description of the date is kind of strange when you're saying he's surprised by it, but he meant to take advantage of it.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
Well, let's clarify what he was surprised by.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
He saw ever, at any point in time, exclusively one and only one date that would conceivably begin the 30-day period on the statue.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
And that's the date written on the form itself, the notice of levy form.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
He never saw any other date.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
He was never given any other date.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
So if you have one and only one, exclusively one date in front of you, when do you start the 30-day period?

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
There was another date, right?

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
It was a date, the postmark on the envelope.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
There was no postmark.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
I thought the envelope was thrown away.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
I thought that was the evidence.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
The envelope was thrown away, but there was no postmark on it.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
That's clear on the record.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
There was a meter mark date.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
Well, I'm sorry.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
A meter mark is not evidence of the date something was mailed.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
It's not the same as a postmark.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
But there was testimony here that, in fact, we were able to establish the date on which it was mailed.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
One of two dates it was either or two dates possible.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
So on that point the statute is very crystal clear that

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Yeah, the statute is crystal clear that it's when it's sent, right?

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
That's the key issue.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
When it's sent, not the date on the notice itself.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
I'd like to address the date.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
The way this works is I speak.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
My understanding is it's not the date that's on the notice of intent.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
It's the date that it's sent.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And there's evidence here that it was sent at a later date.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
And so the clock starts running at a later date.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
And typically, that inures to the benefit, that interpretation, that approach, inures to the benefit of the taxpayer because it gives him or her more time to respond.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
Ordinarily, that would be true.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
I disagree with the date part.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
That is the ultimate issue to be decided, which state controls.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
And on that matter, the statute has the word shell in it.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Shell include, in simple and non-technical terms, this, that, and the other, one of them being the 30-day period in which you have to request a hearing.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
So as to your question of the date on the envelope,

[00:06:41] Speaker 02:
My client never saw the envelope.

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
The tax court, in its written opinion, admits that twice.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
But hypothetically, just hypothetically you could see it.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
You say your client never saw the envelope, and the suggestion there is there is some wrongdoing by the part of the government.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Your client never saw the envelope because something happened at his household where he didn't

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
retain the envelope.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
Let's pretend that he did see the envelope.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
What would he have seen on it?

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
Not a postmark.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
He would have seen a meter mark, which is not evidence of the date something was mailed.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
So he would have to fulfill the statute.

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
It's not evidence.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
It can be corroborative of testimony as to when it's mailed.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
And we have in this case testimony about the mail.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
That would be evidence if you had it here.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't be conclusive evidence like a postmark.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
Would it be evidence of what this taxpayer received?

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
Would it be evidence of what this taxpayer knew?

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
Had he seen that envelope, he would have to do some Sherlock Holmes sleuthing to translate a meter mark into a possible mailing date.

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
I submit that's not simple.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
That's not technical.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
The statute was not fulfilled.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
So whichever date you want to control, you have to, per the statute, give notice of that to the taxpayer in, quote, simple and non-technical terms.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
And the statute does not answer the question of which date controls.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
We all know that.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
So we would look then to the regulations, perform a Chevron analysis to see if the regulations explain which date controls.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
As briefed in detail in our briefs,

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
The regulation is clear the word notice is a noun as in the phrase date of the notice or date on the notice It's a noun the date of the notice the date on the notice is the date that's on the notice And again, that's the one and only exclusive date this taxpayer ever received But it doesn't say on the notice in the rig of the notice

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
The regs might say date of the notice.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
Accompanying within that levy notice, there were multiple Irish publications.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
There's no word where it clearly says the date on the notice, is there?

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
Your government shiver on one.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
And there's no word where it clearly says the date on the notice, is there?

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
That's the exact phrase of one of the publications that accompanied the levy notice.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
other sources of regulations might say the date of the notice, but that preposition makes no difference.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
I think it makes all the difference in the world.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry?

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
I think it makes all the difference in the world.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
If it clearly, if you're saying there's a clear interpretation of on the notice, that's very different than saying of the notice if the notice is actually governed by the mailing date.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
My point is argued in the Greece is that the word notice is a noun, not a verb.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
The word of and on is a preposition, not a noun.

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
The word notice is a noun.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
So date of the notice, date on the notice, date in the notice.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
Whoa, it's very clear we're dealing with a notice.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Question is, is the date the one that is on or of the notice, right?

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
The date on the notice is the one you want to be governed by.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
That is true.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
But if of the notice could also mean of the time it was prepared or of the time it was mailed or received, then that's not a Chevron one question, right?

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
I believe the statute is clear that a taxpayer has to be notified of the date that begins a 30 day period.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
arguing over which preposition misses that larger point.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
That point also is consistent with the congressional tent behind the statute, which both parties mentioned that in the briefs.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
The congressional tent behind the statute was to protect taxpayer rights and curb virus abuses.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
There's no protection of taxpayer rights if we're, so to speak, hiding the ball, given the taxpayer one and only one exclusive date, but telling, oh, I'm sorry, that was the wrong date.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
Are you into your rebuttal time?

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, Judge Santel has questions.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
We'll give you some time back.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
We'll hear from the government.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
Good morning, and may it please the Court.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
I'm Francesca Ugolini, counsel for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
So if I'm a taxpayer, how am I supposed to know when the 30 days start?

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
I get this packet of information.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
I don't have a postmark on it.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
I've got a letter inside that has one date.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
I've got some instructions.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
that are contradictory, what am I supposed to do?

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
Why is this so difficult?

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
Why can't the IRS make this plan?

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
Why can't there be, in the envelope, a letter that says, the date starts running from X?

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
And these are taxpayers.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
These are normal citizens, not like you and me, right?

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
They don't read things as carefully to know the difference between on and off.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
Certainly, in an ideal world, the date on the letter would match the date of mailing so that a taxpayer could, even though... That's not a very high ideal.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
Yeah, that's not too hard.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Why does it have to be an ideal world in order for the IRS to actually notify the taxpayer of what date the 30-day starts running from?

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the IRS notify the taxpayer?

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
Whoa, whoa, whoa.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
You do all kinds of things you're not required to do.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
That isn't an answer to our question.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
When we say why doesn't the IRS do it, it's not an answer to say we don't have to.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Does it not make sense that if the purpose is to give the taxpayer notice of how much time he's got to make the request in, does the statute have to say, IRS, you have to tell him,

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
Isn't that something the government should know without having to be told?

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
First of all, taxpayers are charged with knowledge of the law.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
And there are a lot of cases out there involving different kinds of notices where the IRS... Walk me through.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
I'm the taxpayer.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
What am I supposed to do?

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
I've got the envelope and I've got all sorts of different dates on it.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
So what am I supposed

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
I want to comply with the law.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
I want to know how much time I have to respond.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
What do I do then with this conflicting information in front of us?

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
I'm charged with the knowledge of the law, but practically speaking, what do I do?

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
I think that if you're a taxpayer who really wants a collection due process hearing, then you count out – I think it's fair that they would probably look at the date on the letter.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
They would probably count 30 days from that date.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And then if you really want a CDP hearing to protect your rights, you make sure that you fill in the form and send it back to the IRS well before the 30 days has run.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
That way – Well before?

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
Why should you have to do it well before?

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
The whole purpose in the 30 days is so you have a timeframe within which to send it.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
That's right, but if you are a, the question is, if I really want to get this done and I'm really unsure.

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
No, that's not the question.

[00:14:02] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that wasn't the question.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
The question is, how do I know how much time I have?

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
How am I supposed to find out how much time I have when I've got these dueling dates in front of me?

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
Well, if you, the regulations and the materials provided to the taxpayers say the date of the notice, and if a taxpayer got online and looked up the Treasury regulations, there is an example.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
The taxpayer is supposed to have to get online and look up the rig.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
The IRS has it the whole time.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Why does the taxpayer have to do that for you?

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
There is only one notice that Congress has required the IRS to put the last day for filing on.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
That's a Notice of Deficiency, and the Internal Revenue Code requires the IRS to put the last day for filing on a Notice of Deficiency so that taxpayers have a date certain on which to file on the Tax Court.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
But in this case, it didn't get a date certain.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
That's right, but Congress is... You're not going by the date on there.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
You're supposed to be giving them a date certain.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
You're not supposed to write about that.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
And if your people don't know how to do that, they could go online and find out how to put that on there.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
I expect they know how.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
The law doesn't require the IRS to give a date certain.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
And whether the request was timely is governed by the statute.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
The law requires the taxpayer to operate within a 30-day period from a date which the IRS has cost to become relevant.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
That's about as close as you can come to saying the IRS has to deal with a date certain.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
I mean, Congress could say, listen, IRS, we mean by that that you have to tell the taxpayer what date it is.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
But to say the law doesn't require you to do it, that's not much of an excuse you can have.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
It may be the best practice of the IRS.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
That may be something to consider as a best practices issue.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
But there are also a lot of cases where the IRS, even though not required by law, lists a date on a notice saying this is your last day to seek tax court review.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
And the IRS, the person who calculates that date has sometimes gotten that wrong.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
So then the taxpayer ends up with incorrect information that wasn't required to be provided by law.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
And there's a slew of cases where taxpayers have filed by those dates and courts have held that even though an individual IRS agent made a mistake regarding the date that was gratuitously listed on this letter, the statute controls whether or not the petition was timely.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
It comes back to the operation of the statute.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
Don't we come back to what Judge Griffith was asking you?

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
How is the taxpayer in this case supposed to know from when the 30-day runs within which two

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
I think it's generally fair for a taxpayer to look at the date that is on the letter, compute 30 days, and mail it in.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
Well, wasn't that what the taxpayer here did?

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
He did, and his request was timely.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
He wasn't prejudiced because most taxpayers, they want a collection due process hearing.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
They want the chance to, they want the levy and joins so that they're not going to get a notice of levy on their bank account.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And what happened in this case gave the taxpayer more time to

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
seek administrative review and have the full rights provided under Section 6330.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
The taxpayer has done what you just got through saying he should be able to do.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
He relied on the date on the notice.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
He relied on in this case to deliberately try to make his filing untimely, but

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
Had he wanted to make his filing untimely, he had a year to request an equivalent hearing.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
So if he wanted to be sure that the statute of limitations would not stop, he didn't need to file the 31st day.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
Pardon?

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
We have to do it within a year, but he's dealing with a law that requires 30 days.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
They don't allow 30 days.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
If a taxpayer wants to have a statutory collection due process hearing, that has to be requested within 30 days.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
If the request is made after 30 days, then they get an administrative hearing called an equivalent hearing.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
It doesn't come with the full statutory consequences of a CDP hearing, but you have up to a year to request an equivalent hearing.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
And that's how an untimely request is normally considered.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
This is not a case where the IRS letter post-dated the mailing so that the taxpayer thought the 30th day started after the day on which it had actually begun.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
This is a case where the 30 days began to run after the date on the letter.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
It afforded the taxpayer here two more days to request a collection due process hearing.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
He filed it.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
The statute controls whether or not the request was in fact a statutory collection due process request, and it was under the plain language of the statute.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
I think as Judge Griffith pointed out, 6330A2 starts at the 30-day clock on the basis of one of three events.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
when the notice is given in person, which here the IRS agent actually tried to do, which is why the dates were different.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
He printed the letter out on February 11th, attempted to hand deliver it, and couldn't get down the taxpayer's driveway because of a dog.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
The second thing that could start the clock is whether it's left at the dwelling place, also something the IRS agent attempted to do on February 11th.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
or sent by certified or registered mail to the person's last known address.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
That is what he did.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
There is no dispute that it was sent by certified or registered mail.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
That's on pages 55 and 56 of the Joint Appendix.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
I heard counsel make reference to the meter mail not being a true postmark, but what the statute actually requires is that it's sent by certified or registered mail, and that's what happened here.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
That happened on February 13th, and that is the day that the 30-day clock began to run.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
Court has any further questions?

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
Just ask that the decision of the tax court be affirmed.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
You're not abandoning reliance on that RH turns theory.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
No, we're not.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
I think that that case we relied on that case mainly to refute the taxpayers claim of prejudice.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
The taxpayers claim that he was prejudiced because he didn't get the opportunity to file an untimely request that would have stopped the limitations period.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
And the government's response to that is that he really wanted to file an untimely request.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
that would have stopped the limitations period, then the government needed to be on notice of that so that it could levy for his unpaid taxes before the limitations period expired.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
So having sent in a hearing request that asked for a CDP hearing, he can't be heard to complain that he actually got that, and so the government forbore from collecting his taxes.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
How much time does...

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
We'll give you a minute.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
Give you one minute.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
One minute.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
I'll be fast.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
Verification.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
We assert that it was an abuse of discretion for the settlement officer to verify that all statutes, that all law and administrative procedure has been followed.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
She arrives for rebuttal.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
This is only to rebut the government's argument.

[00:21:05] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
Unless I misheard counsel, counsel said that if measured by the notice date, my client's form 1 to 153 was on time, was within the 30 days.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
That's a mistake.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
If measured by the notice date, he was one day late.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Now, it's true that under the regulations, the taxpayer has up to a year to request an equivalent hearing, but the regulation doesn't say you must wait a year or 11 months or 10 months or any period of time.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
The regulation clearly states that if you're one day late, the IRS is supposed to, without the taxpayer doing anything further, offer the taxpayer an equivalent hearing.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
You just have to be one day late per the regulations.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
My client was one day late if measured by the notice date.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
I believe I'm out of time.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you.