                         T.C. Memo. 2006-86



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT




                  LLOYD PRAGASAM, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12636-04L.           Filed April 25, 2006.



     William E. Windham, for petitioner.

     Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed a petition in response to respondent’s Decision

Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or
                                - 2 -

6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letter).1    The issue

for decision is whether the Court lacks jurisdiction under

sections 6320 and 6330 with regard to the years in issue.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

      Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.    At the time he filed the

petition, petitioner resided in Loma Linda, California.

I.   1995

      On April 15, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency addressed to petitioner at his last known address,

11767 Knightsbridge Place, Loma Linda, CA 92354, determining

petitioner owed an income tax deficiency of $185,480 and a

penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $37,096 for the

1995 tax year.    Petitioner did not respond to the notice of

deficiency by petitioning the Tax Court within 90 days from

April 15, 1999.

      On August 30, 1999, respondent assessed the additional 1995

tax liability, along with penalties and interest, and mailed

notice and demand to petitioner at his last known address.      On

March 1, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice of

Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC



      1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended.
                               - 3 -

6320 with respect to the 1995 tax year.   Petitioner did not

timely request a hearing in response to the March 1, 2000,

notice.

II.   1996 and 1997

      On July 13, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency addressed to petitioner at his last known address,

11767 Knightsbridge Place, Loma Linda, CA 92354, determining

petitioner owed an income tax deficiency for 1996 of $172,587, a

penalty under section 6662(a) for 1996 in the amount of

$34,517.40, an income tax deficiency for 1997 of $219,010, an

addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file a

return for 1997 within the time prescribed by law in the amount

of $10,942.05, and a penalty under section 6662(a) for 1997 in

the amount of $43,802.

      Petitioner did not respond to the notice of deficiency by

petitioning the Tax Court within 90 days from July 13, 2000.     On

December 18, 2000, respondent assessed the additional 1996 and

1997 tax liabilities, along with penalties and interest, and

mailed notice and demand regarding the unpaid 1996 and 1997 tax

liabilities to petitioner at his last known address.

      On March 19, 2001, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice

of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC

6320 with respect to the 1996 and 1997 tax years.   Petitioner did
                                   - 4 -

not timely request a hearing in response to the March 19, 2001,

notice.

III.       1995, 1996, and 1997

       On November 6, 2003, respondent issued a Notice of Federal

Tax Lien Filing-Nominee, Transferee or Alter-Ego (Nominee Lien)

to Renaissance Health Systems LLC (Renaissance) in connection

with the 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax liabilities of petitioner.       On

November 6, 2003, respondent also issued a Notice of Federal Tax

Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 to

petitioner in connection with the 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax

liabilities.

       On or about December 5, 2003, Renaissance Health Systems LLC

(Nominee, Transferee, or Alter-Ego, Lloyd A. Pragasam)2 submitted

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

setting forth disagreement with the filed Notice of Federal Tax

Lien.       On February 25, 2004, the Appeals Office held a hearing

with petitioner’s representatives.

       On June 14, 2004, respondent issued a Decision Letter

Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of

the Internal Revenue Code to petitioner.       On July 14, 2004,

petitioner mailed a petition to this Court setting forth his

disagreement with the Decision Letter.


       2
        In light of our resolution of the case, we need not
address respondent’s argument that this entity had no rights to
its own collection hearing or equivalent hearing.
                                - 5 -

     The Decision Letter stated in part:     “Your due process

hearing request was not filed within the time prescribed under

Section 6320 and/or 6330.   However, you received a hearing

equivalent to a due process hearing except that there is no right

to dispute a decision by the Appeals Office in court under IRC

Sections 6320 and/or 6330.”

     Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.   Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s

motion to dismiss.    Respondent filed a supplement to the motion

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.     Petitioner filed a

supplemental objection to the motion to dismiss.

     The Court held a hearing on respondent’s motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction.

                               OPINION

     The parties dispute whether petitioner is entitled to a

collection hearing.   Respondent argues that this Court should

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction as petitioner did not

file a timely hearing request in response to each first Notice of

Federal Tax Lien filed for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1997.

Petitioner argues that he did not receive the March 1, 2000, or

the March 19, 2001, notice, that the first notice regarding his

1995, 1996, and 1997 liabilities that he received was in November

2003, and he requested a hearing in response to that notice.
                                 - 6 -

I.   Last Known Address

      Sections 6320(a) and 6330(a) provide in pertinent part that

the Secretary shall notify a person in writing of his or her

right to an Appeals Office hearing regarding the Secretary’s

filing of a notice of lien under section 6323 or the Secretary’s

intent to levy, respectively, by mailing the notice required by

section 6320(a) or section 6330(a), as the case may be, by

certified or registered mail to such person at his or her last

known address.   The regulations under sections 6320 and 6330

reference section 301.6212-2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., to define

“last known address”.     Secs. 301.6320-1(a)(1), 301.6330-1(a)(1),

Proced. & Admin. Regs.    Under section 6212, in general, the

Commissioner is entitled to treat the address on a taxpayer’s

most recent tax return as the taxpayer’s last known address,

unless the taxpayer has given “‘clear and concise notification of

a different address.’”     Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8

(2004) (quoting Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 260 n.4

(2001)), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005).

      Petitioner’s Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments,

Payments, and Other Specified Matters, for 1995, 1996, and 1997,

indicate that the notices of Federal tax liens were filed in

March 2000, March 2001, and March 2001, respectively.    The Forms

4340 are sufficient proof, in the absence of evidence to the

contrary, of the adequacy and propriety of notices and
                               - 7 -

assessments that have been made.     Id.   Further, respondent

submitted copies of these notices of Federal tax liens, listing a

certified mail number, the letter dates, and the date of filing.

      We also note that the address on the copies of the notices

of Federal tax liens is “11767 Knightsbridge PL, Loma Linda, CA

92354-4160.”   This is the address petitioner listed on his 1995,

1996, and 1997 tax returns.   On the basis of the record, we find

that the address used for the March 1, 2000, and March 19, 2001,

notices was petitioner’s last known address.

      The only evidence that petitioner presented is petitioner’s

testimony that he did not receive the notices.     The Court need

not accept at face value a witness’s testimony that is self-

interested or otherwise questionable.      See Archer v.

Commissioner, 227 F.2d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 1955), affg. a

Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Weiss v. Commissioner, 221 F.2d

152, 156 (8th Cir. 1955), affg. T.C. Memo. 1954-51; Schroeder v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-467.

II.   Collection Hearing

      Section 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the

person described in section 6321 with written notice (i.e., the

hearing notice) of the filing of a notice of lien under section

6323.   Section 6320 further provides that the taxpayer may

request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a

hearing) within a 30-day period.
                                - 8 -

     Section 6320(b)(2) states that a taxpayer shall be entitled

to only one hearing with respect to the taxable period to which

the unpaid tax relates.    Taxpayers are entitled to this hearing

only if they request administrative review of the matter within

the 30-day period following the receipt of the first notice of

lien with regard to the unpaid tax.     Sec. 301.6320-1(b)(2), Q&A-

B4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.;3 Investment Research Associates, Inc.

v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. __ (2006); see also Orum v.

Commissioner, supra (reaching the same conclusion in a levy

case).    Congress further specified in the conference report for

the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of

1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, that the right to a hearing

“applies only after the first Notice of Lien with regard to each

tax liability is filed.”    H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 265 (1998),

1998-3 C.B. 747, 1019.

     On March 1, 2000, and March 19, 2001, respondent sent

petitioner notices of Federal tax liens at his last known


     3
          Sec. 301.6320-1(b)(2), Q&A-B4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
states:

     Q-B4. If the IRS sends a second CDP Notice under section
6320 (other than a substitute CDP Notice) for a tax period and
with respect to an unpaid tax for which a section 6320 CDP Notice
was previously sent, is the taxpayer entitled to a section 6320
CDP hearing based on the second CDP Notice?

     A-B4. No. The taxpayer is entitled to a CDP hearing under
section 6320 for each tax period only with respect to the first
filing of a NFTL on or after January 19, 1999, with respect to an
unpaid tax.
                               - 9 -

address.   Petitioner did not request a hearing within the 30-day

filing period required by section 6320(a)(3).

     Under the circumstances, respondent was not obliged to

conduct a collection hearing pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330.

Investment Research Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra;

Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 11.     In place of the collection

hearing, the Appeals Office granted petitioner an equivalent

hearing for 1995, 1996, and 1997.    Thereafter, the Appeals Office

issued a decision letter to petitioner stating that the proposed

collection actions were sustained.     The decision letter does not

constitute a notice of determination under sections 6320(c) and

6330(d)(1), which would provide a basis for petitioner to invoke

the Court’s jurisdiction for 1995, 1996, and 1997.    See Moorhous

v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); Kennedy v.

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

     In discussing whether the decision letter in this case

constitutes a determination, the parties address Craig v.

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002).     We differentiated Craig v.

Commissioner, supra, in Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 11-12, a

case similar to the instant case, by stating:

          This case is distinguishable from Craig v.
     Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), in which we held
     that we had jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) when
     the Appeals Office issued a decision letter to the
     taxpayer. Id. at 259. In Craig, the Commissioner
     mailed to the taxpayer a notice of intent to levy on
     February 22, 2001. Id. at 254. On March 17, 2001, the
     taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing by
                             - 10 -

     mailing the Commissioner a letter accompanied by
     unsigned Forms 12153. Id. at 255. On May 6, 2001, the
     Commissioner received signed Forms 12153 but granted
     the taxpayer only an equivalent hearing. Id. at 255-
     256. A decision letter was then issued to the taxpayer
     following the equivalent hearing. Id. at 256. The
     Court held that “where Appeals issued the decision
     letter to petitioner in response to his timely request
     for a Hearing, we conclude that the ‘decision’
     reflected in the decision letter issued to petitioner
     is a ‘determination’ for purposes of section
     6330(d)(1).” Id. at 259. * * *

In the instant case, as in Orum, petitioner did not timely

request a collection hearing in response to the

March 1, 2000, and March 19, 2001, notices.   As a result, we do

not conclude that the decision in the decision letter is a

determination for purposes of sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).

Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 12.

     We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction as to 1995, 1996, and 1997 because the petition was

not filed in response to a notice of determination sufficient to

confer jurisdiction on the Court under sections 6320(c) and

6330(d)(1).

     In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered

all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not

mentioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.
                        - 11 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                 An appropriate order of

                            dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

                            will be entered.
