MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before us on petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1 We shall deny that motion.
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the following:
At the time petitioner timely filed the petition in this case, he resided in Powhatan, Virginia.
On February 5, 2002, respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office) mailed to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection actions(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330 Summary of Determination
The Internal Revenue Service mailed a Letter 1058, Final
Notice - Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A
Hearing, on March 7, 2001 concerning the unpaid Federal
income tax (Form 1040) for the periods ending noted above
[taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996]. In response to
the letter you submitted Form 12153, received April 2, 2001,
requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing. Your request was
forwarded to this Appeals Office.
Since you did not respond to the Appeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, we will return you [sic] case to the Collection function
for collection appropriate action.
An attachment to the notice of determination stated in pertinent part:
Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures
IRC section 6631(d) requires that the IRS notify a taxpayer at
least 30 days before the day of levy. Notice CP 523 was mailed
to you via certified mail.
IRC section 6630(a) states that no levy may be made unless the
IRS notifies a taxpayer of the opportunity for a hearing with
the IRS Office of Appeals. Notice CP 523 "Notice of Intent
to Levy" was mailed to you via certified mail. You made a
timely request for a hearing.
IRC section 6330(c) allows you to raise any relevant issue
relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy at the hearing.
Relevant Issues Raised by the Taxpayer
You did not attend the Scheduled hearing and have not responded
to any contact by the Appeals Office.
Balancing Collection and Intrusiveness
The outstanding tax liabilities for 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993
are based on the returns you filed for those years. The 1996
liability is based on information the IRS had on file. * * *
Since you have not responded to any contact by the Appeals
Office, your case will be returned to the Collection function
for appropriate action.
Respondent acknowledges in respondent's response to petitioner's motion: "The February 5, 2002, Notice of Determination did not contain all the statements required by Treas. Reg. section 301.6330-1(e)(3) Q&A-E8 . For this reason, Appeals sent to petitioner the Supplemental Notice dated May 1, 2003."
The "Supplemental Notice dated May 1, 2003" referred to in respondent's response to petitioner's motion is a supplemental notice of determination concerning collection actions(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330 (supplemental notice of determination), which the Appeals Office mailed to petitioner on May 1, 2003, after petitioner filed the petition in this case. That supplemental notice, which pertained to petitioner's taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996, stated in pertinent part:
Summary of Determination
Notice - Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A
[taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996]. In response to
requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing. Your request was
Since you did not respond to theAppeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, this office issued a Notice of Determination. We are
returning your case to the IRS Area Counsel's office for trial
preparation.
An attachment to the supplemental notice of determination stated in pertinent part:
Legal and Procedural Requirements
The Appeals Officer verified that the applicable laws and
administrative procedures have been met. IRC Sec. 6321 provides
a statutory lien when a taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay a
tax liability after notice and demand. Transcripts of the
taxpayer's accounts show the Service Center issued notice and
demand as follows:
| Year | Date |
| 1990 | September 21, 1992 |
| 1991 | July 19, 1993 |
| 1992 | August 1, 1994 |
| 1993 | August 1, 1994 |
| 1996 | November 9, 1998 |
The obligations remain unpaid; the transcripts indicate that assessments were made on the date the notices were issued.
* * * * * * *
This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with respect
to these liabilities * * *.
The outstanding liabilities for 1990-1993 are based on returns
you filed for those years. The 1996 liability is based on a
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. * * * Review of your file shows the
Internal Revenue Service issued the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY on June
5, 1998 for the 1996 taxable year and you did not appeal the
notice.
Validity of the Assessment
The assessments are all valid according to the Appeals Officer's
review of the transcripts of account.
Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness
IRC Sec. 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer consider whether
any collection action balance [sic] the need for efficient tax
collection with the legitimate concern that any collection
action be no more intrusive than necessary. You have not
provided an acceptable payment alternative to the proposed levy
action that would satisfy the underpayments. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed levy action balances the
Government's need for effective tax collection with your
legitimate concerns of intrusiveness.
Discussion
In support of petitioner's motion, petitioner argues:
On its face, the * * * [notice of determination] is
invalid: it fails to comply with a notice's specific content
requirements as set forth in Treasury Regulation section 301.6330-
1(e)(3)(Q&A-E8)(i); it fails to comply with a notice's general
content requirements as set forth in I.R.C. section 6330(c)(3). By
issuing the * * * [supplemental notice of determination] to
Petitioner, Respondent has affirmed that the * * * [notice of
determination] is invalid.
The Court's jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 6330(d)(1)
depends upon the issuance of a valid Notice of Determination.
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). Yet no
valid Notice of Determination has been issued in this case.
Therefore, the Court should dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction. [Reproduced literally.]
In petitioner's memorandum, petitioner elaborates on the foregoing arguments as follows:
The * * * [notice of determination] issued in this case,
inter alia, neglects to set forth Appeals' findings and
decisions; does not resolve the issue raised by Petitioner in
his Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process hearing;
and fails to state whether the IRS met the requirements of any
applicable law or administrative procedure. I.R.C.
section 6330(c)(3). Treasury Regulation section 301.6330-1(e)(3)(Q&A-
E8)(i). [Reproduced literally.]
The Court has jurisdiction to review the determination made under section 6330(c)(3) by the Appeals Office of the Internal Revenue Service upon the timely filing of a petition. Sec. 6330(d)(1)(A). The Court has held that a "written notice that embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of the taxes in issue" is a determination for purposes of the Court's jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1)(A). Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 164 (2001).
The notice of determination in the instant case stated:
Since you did not respond to the Appeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, we will return you [sic] case to the Collection function
We hold that the notice of determination embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's tax liability for each of his taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996. We further hold that we have jurisdiction to review that determination in the instant case. 2
We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of petitioner that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order denying petitioner's motion will be issued.