                        T.C. Memo. 2008-33



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 PAUL J. KENNEDY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 10139-07L.               Filed February 19, 2008.



     Paul J. Kennedy, pro se.

     Gordon P. Sanz, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     GOEKE, Judge:   This collection review case is before the

Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Respondent submits that there is no notice of determination which

this Court has jurisdiction to review.   Petitioner, however,

argues that no valid notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) filing nor

final notice of intent to levy and notice of the right to a
                                 - 2 -

hearing (notice of intent to levy) was sent to his proper

address.   Because we find that respondent has not issued a valid

NFTL or a valid notice of intent to levy, we shall dismiss this

case for lack of jurisdiction.

                            Background

     At the time this petition was filed, petitioner resided at

1101 Kost Road in Alvin, Texas (the Kost Road address).    It

appears that petitioner has not filed income tax returns since

1996.   According to respondent, petitioner’s last known address

was RR 4, Box 415, Alvin, Texas 77511 (the Box 415 address).

While petitioner did in fact reside at this address at some

point, the parties agree that petitioner has not lived there for

some time.

     On July 9, 2001, respondent’s Collection Branch sent a

Letter 2797 addressed to petitioner at the Kost Road address.

The Letter 2797 asked petitioner to verify that the Kost Road

address was his correct address.    Petitioner checked the box

indicating that the Kost Road address was in fact his correct

address.   Petitioner then mailed the completed Letter 2797 back

to respondent by certified mail.    According to the return

receipt, respondent received the completed Letter 2797 on July

19, 2001, in Ogden, Utah.

     On or about February 16, 2007, respondent issued the NFTL

with respect to petitioner’s tax liabilities for the years 1999,
                                - 3 -

2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 to petitioner at the Box 415 address.

On or about February 18, 2007, respondent also issued a notice of

intent to levy to petitioner at the Box 415 address.   Respondent

now concedes that this final notice of intent to levy was not

sent by certified mail.

     Petitioner did not receive either of the collection notices

respondent mailed.   Petitioner became aware of respondent’s

collection attempts only when he discovered that his bank account

had been emptied.    Respondent has since refunded the money that

was levied upon in the light of his concession that he had not

sent the notice of intent to levy by certified mail.

     Petitioner eventually obtained a copy of the notice of

intent to levy from his bank and, on or about April 17, 2007,

sent Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, to

respondent’s Appeals Office.   On May 2, 2007, respondent’s

Appeals Office sent petitioner a letter informing him that the

levy was valid.   On May 8, 2007, petitioner timely filed a

petition contesting respondent’s determination.

                             Discussion

     The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may

exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

Congress.   Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).    The

Court’s jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends upon

the issuance of a valid notice of determination and the filing of
                                 - 4 -

a timely petition for review.    See Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C.

1 (2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Sarrell v.

Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122, 125 (2001); Moorhous v. Commissioner,

116 T.C. 263, 269 (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492,

498 (2000); see also Rule 330(b).    In the absence of a notice of

determination, this Court lacks jurisdiction.      It is clear

respondent did not issue a notice of determination in respect of

petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for the years at issue.

A necessary predicate for the issuance of a notice of

determination, however, is the issuance of a final notice of

intent to levy (or an NFTL) sent to the taxpayer at the

taxpayer’s last known address.    See sec. 6330(a)(2)(C).       Thus,

while it is clear the Court does not have jurisdiction, we must

still decide the proper basis for dismissal.       Kennedy v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 263 (2001).

     In our recent Memorandum Opinion, Buffano v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2007-32, we dismissed a collection review petition for

lack of jurisdiction because the Secretary did not send a valid

final notice of intent to levy to the taxpayer’s last known

address.   We reasoned that section 6331(d) provides that at least

30 days before an enforced collection action by levy, the

Secretary is obligated to provide the taxpayer with a final

notice of intent to levy, including notice of the administrative

appeals available to the taxpayer.       Id. (citing Davis v.
                               - 5 -

Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000), and Goza v. Commissioner,

114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000)).   Further, section 6330(a)(2) provides

that the notice of intent to levy must be given in person, left

at the person’s dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by

certified or registered mail to the person’s last known address.

Thus, because the taxpayer’s last known address was not used, we

found the final notice of intent to levy invalid.   Buffano v.

Commissioner, supra.

     While respondent concedes that the final notice of intent to

levy was invalid because it was not sent via certified mail,

respondent has also filed liens against petitioner’s property.

Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States on all

property and rights to property of a taxpayer liable for taxes

when a demand for payment of the taxes has been made and the

taxpayer has failed to pay those taxes.   Section 6320(a) provides

that the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer with a written NFTL

within 5 business days after the NFTL is filed, including notice

of the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer.     Like

the final notice of intent to levy, section 6320(a) provides that

the notice of filing of a lien must be given in person, left at

the person’s dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by

certified or registered mail to the person’s last known address.

     However, in contrast to a levy, the Secretary need not

provide notice before the filing of a lien.   Instead, the
                               - 6 -

Secretary must only provide notice of having already filed a lien

within 5 days of doing so.   Sec. 6320(a).   Further, the lien

exists regardless of whether it has been filed by the Secretary.

Sec. 6321.   Accordingly, the regulations provide:

     A NFTL becomes effective upon filing. The validity and
     priority of a NFTL is not conditioned on notification
     to the taxpayer pursuant to section 6320. Therefore,
     the failure to notify the taxpayer concerning the
     filing of a NFTL does not affect the validity or
     priority of the NFTL. When the IRS determines that it
     failed properly to provide a taxpayer with a CDP
     Notice, it will promptly provide the taxpayer with a
     substitute CDP Notice and provide the taxpayer with an
     opportunity to request a CDP hearing.* * *

Sec. 301.6320-1(a)(2), Q&A-12, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

     While the validity or priority of a lien may not be affected

by the Secretary’s failure to provide proper notice within 5

days, section 6320 makes clear that a taxpayer is entitled to a

valid notice (and an administrative hearing) upon the Secretary’s

filing of a lien.   Thus, the Secretary must send the NFTL filing

to the taxpayer’s last known address.

     Section 301.6212-2(a) and (b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,

applies to all notices and documents whenever the term “last

known address” is used.   Sec. 301.6212-2(c), Proced. & Admin.

Regs.   The regulation provides the general rule:

     a taxpayer’s last known address is the address that
     appears on the taxpayer’s most recently filed and
     properly processed Federal tax return, unless the
     Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is given clear and
     concise notification of a different address. * * *
                                - 7 -

Sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Kennedy v.

Commissioner, supra at 260 n.4; Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374 (1974), affd. without published

opinion 538 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976).

     An inquiry into a taxpayer’s last known address is based on

the relevant facts and circumstances.    Weinroth v. Commissioner,

74 T.C. 430, 435 (1980).    If the Government has become aware of a

change of address, the Commissioner may not rely on the address

listed on the last-filed tax return but must exercise reasonable

care to discern the taxpayer’s correct address.   See, e.g., Pyo

v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626 (1984).    We examine what respondent

knew at the time the notice was issued, attributing “‘to

respondent information which respondent knows, or should know,

with respect to a taxpayer’s last known address, through the use

of its computer system.’”    Buffano v. Commissioner, supra

(quoting Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988)).

     Respondent’s Collection Branch sent petitioner a Letter

2797, requesting petitioner’s assistance in updating its records.

While petitioner may not have been the most diligent

taxpayer––having not filed returns since 1996––the record

reflects that petitioner did respond to respondent’s request.

Upon receipt of the Letter 2797, petitioner checked the box to

indicate that the Kost Road address was his correct address.

Petitioner then sent the Letter 2797 back to respondent by
                                 - 8 -

certified mail.   The return receipt reflects that respondent

received the completed Letter 2797 on July 19, 2001, in Ogden,

Utah.   Accordingly, we find that respondent knew, or at the very

least should have known on the basis of information mailed to

him, that petitioner’s address was the Kost Road address.

     In sum, we find that the final notice of intent to levy as

well as the NFTL respondent issued with respect to petitioner’s

1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 tax years were not mailed to

petitioner’s last known address and are therefore invalid.       For

this reason, we will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                         An appropriate order will be

                                 entered dismissing this case for

                                 lack of jurisdiction on the ground

                                 that respondent did not send

                                 petitioner valid collection notices

                                 to his last known address.
