                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-66



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                CANDICE T. WHITMAN, Petitioner v.
         COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 13854-07S.            Filed June 12, 2008.




     Candice T. Whitman, pro se.

     Russell F. Kurdys, for respondent.



     HAINES, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect

when the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and



     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and as in effect when the
petition was filed.
                                 -2-

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.

     This collection case under section 6330 is before us on

respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the

ground that the petition was not timely filed.    For the reasons

stated below we must grant respondent’s motion.

                              Background

     Petitioner resided in Pennsylvania at the time her petition

was filed.

     On January 9, 2007, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 (notice of determination) for 2000 through 2002.

Petitioner alleges that around that time she went on vacation to

Florida and had her mail forwarded to a Florida post office box.

The U.S. Postal Service attempted delivery and left notice of the

attempted delivery at her correct Pennsylvania address on January

11, 2007.    The U.S. Postal Service did not attempt delivery at

the Florida post office box.    On January 30, 2007, the notice of

determination went unclaimed, and it was returned to respondent

on February 5, 2007.

     After petitioner contacted respondent’s Appeals Office, a

courtesy copy of the notice of determination was sent to

petitioner on May 14, 2007.    On June 11, 2007, petitioner mailed

her petition to the Court, and the Court filed it on June 18,
                                 -3-

2007. On August 3, 2007, the Court filed respondent’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.      On August 27, 2007, the Court

filed petitioner’s objection to the motion.     A hearing was held

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 3, 2008.

                              Discussion

     We have jurisdiction to review a determination under section

6330 if the taxpayer appeals within 30 days of the determination.

Sec. 6330(d)(1).   Our jurisdiction in these cases depends on the

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

timely petition for review.    Weber v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 258,

261 (2004).

     Section 6330(d) does not specify how the Commissioner is to

give notice of a determination under that section.     We have held

the method Congress authorized in subsections (a) and (b) of

section 6212 for sending notices of deficiency will suffice for

section 6330(d) notices of determination.      Weber v. Commissioner,

supra at 261.   Accordingly, a notice of determination is

sufficient if it is sent by certified or registered mail to the

taxpayer at the taxpayer’s last known address.      Id. at 261-262.

The effect of the “shall be sufficient” language in section

6212(b)(1) is to provide a safe harbor assuring the Commissioner

that the notice of deficiency is valid for these purposes even if

the notice is not received by the taxpayer before the end of the

petition period.   Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68
                                 -4-

(1983); Zenco Engg. Corp. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 321-322

(1980), affd. without published opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir.

1981).

     There is no dispute that respondent sent the notice of

determination to petitioner’s last known address by certified

mail.    Petitioner alleges that she was in Florida when delivery

was attempted and that she asked the U.S. Postal Service to

temporarily forward her mail to a Florida post office box while

she was on vacation.    If petitioner’s allegation is true the

result is unfortunate, but the failure to forward her mail has no

bearing on the jurisdictional issue.    Once the notice is mailed

to the taxpayer’s last known address, nothing in the Internal

Revenue Code requires the Commissioner to take additional steps

to effect delivery.    Sebastian v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-

138; Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-315 (citing Pomeroy

v. United States, 864 F.2d 1191, 1195 (5th Cir. 1989)).

     The petition was mailed to the Court on June 11, 2007, more

than 30 days after the date the notice of determination was sent,

January 9, 2007.    Furthermore, the courtesy copy of the notice of

determination mailed to petitioner on May 14, 2007, did not

revive the 30-day filing period.    See Weber v. Commissioner,

supra at 263.   Accordingly, the petition was not timely filed,

and we must dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
                                 -5-

     In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all

arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we find

them to be moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                       An appropriate order of

                                 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

                                 will be entered.
