                         T.C. Memo. 2006-53



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          FELIX AND LILIANA P. PRAKASAM, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

                  FELIX PRAKASAM, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 12136-04L, 12212-04L.    Filed March 23, 2006.



     William E. Windham, for petitioners.

     Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    These consolidated cases are before the

Court on respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
                                 - 2 -

and petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment.1

Petitioners filed a petition in response to respondent’s Decision

Letters Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or

6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letters).2    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 they filed

the petition, petitioners resided in Loma Linda, California.

I.   1995

     On July 12, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency addressed to petitioner at his last known address,

P.O. Box 1659, Loma Linda, CA 92354-1659, determining petitioner

owed an income tax deficiency of $269,251 and a penalty under

section 6662(a) in the amount of $53,850.20 for the 1995 tax

year.    Petitioner did not respond to the notice of deficiency by

petitioning the Tax Court within 90 days from July 12, 1999.

     On November 2, 2000, respondent filed a Notice of Federal

Tax Lien with respect to petitioner concerning the 1995 tax year.

     1
        When we refer to petitioner in the singular, we are
referring to petitioner Felix Prakasam.
     2
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended.
                                - 3 -

On November 7, 2000, respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of

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

6320.    Petitioner did not timely request a hearing with respect

to this notice.

II.    1996

       On September 29, 2000, respondent sent petitioners a notice

of deficiency addressed to petitioners at their last known

address, P.O. Box 1659, Loma Linda, CA 92354-1659, determining

petitioners owed an income tax deficiency of $468,849 and a

penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $93,770 for the

taxable year 1996.

       Petitioners did not respond to the notice of deficiency by

petitioning the Tax Court within 90 days from September 29, 2000.

       On April 19, 2002, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax

Lien with respect to petitioners concerning the 1996 tax year.

On April 24, 2002, respondent issued to petitioners a Notice of

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

6320 with respect to the 1996 tax year.    Petitioners did not

timely request a hearing in response to the April 24, 2002,

notice.

III.    1995 and 1996

       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
                                - 4 -

with the 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities of petitioners.    On

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

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

petitioners in connection with the 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities.

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

(Nominee, Transferee, or Alter-Ego, Felix K. Prakasam)3 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 petitioners’ representatives.

     On June 9, 2004, respondent issued a Decision Letter

Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of

the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letter I) to petitioner for

tax year 1995.    On July 8, 2004, petitioners mailed a petition

to this Court setting forth their disagreement with Decision

Letter I.

     On June 18, 2004, respondent issued a Decision Letter

Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of

the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letter II) to petitioners for

tax year 1996.    On July 12, 2004, petitioners filed a petition

with this Court setting forth their disagreement with Decision

Letter II.

     3
        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 -

     Decision Letters I and II both 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.”

     Petitioner filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to

tax year 1995.   Respondent filed an objection to petitioner’s

motion for partial summary judgment as to tax year 1995.

     Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction in both of these consolidated cases.   Petitioners

filed objections to respondent’s motions to dismiss.    In docket

No. 12212-04L, respondent filed first and second supplements to

the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.   In docket No.

12136-04L, respondent filed a supplement to the motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction.   Petitioners filed a supplemental

objection to each motion to dismiss.

     The Court held a hearing on petitioner’s motion for partial

summary judgment and respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.

                              OPINION

     The parties dispute whether petitioners are entitled to a

collection hearing.   Respondent argues that this Court should

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction as petitioners did not
                                 - 6 -

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

Federal Tax Lien filed for tax year 1995 or 1996.    Petitioners

argue that they did not receive the November 7, 2000, or the

April 24, 2002, notices, that the first notice regarding their

1995 and 1996 liabilities that they received was in November

2003, and they requested a hearing in response to that notice.

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

     Petitioners’ Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments,

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

indicate that the notices of Federal tax liens were filed in

November 2000, and April 2002, respectively.    The Forms 4340 are

sufficient proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of

the adequacy and propriety of notices and assessments that have

been made.   Orum v. Commissioner, supra.    Further, respondent

submitted copies of these notices, 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

is “P.O. Box 1659, Loma Linda, CA 92354-1659.”    This is the

address the petitioners listed on their 1995 and 1996 tax

returns, and petitioner testified that he has been receiving mail

at this address since 1995.   On the basis of the record, we find

that the address used for the November 7, 2000, and April 24,

2002, notices was petitioners’ last known address.

     The only evidence that petitioners presented is petitioner’s

testimony that they 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.     Furthermore, petitioner
                                 - 8 -

testified that he received a notice from respondent prior to the

November 6, 2003, notices, but he did not recall the nature of

that notice.

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.

      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.;4 see also Orum v. Commissioner, supra

      4
          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

                                                       (continued...)
                                - 9 -

(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 November 7, 2000, and April 24, 2002, respondent sent

petitioners notices of Federal tax liens at their last known

address.   Petitioners 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.

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

hearing, the Appeals Office granted petitioners an equivalent

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

decision letters to petitioners stating that the proposed

collection actions were sustained.      The decision letters do not

constitute notices of determination under sections 6320(c) and

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

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



     4
      (...continued)
filing of a NFTL on or after January 19, 1999, with respect to an
unpaid tax.
                                - 10 -

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

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

     In discussing whether the decision letters in this case

constitute 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
     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 v. Commissioner, supra,

petitioners did not timely request a collection hearing in

response to the November 7, 2000, and April 24, 2002, notices.

As a result, we do not conclude that the decisions in the

decision letters are determinations for purposes of sections

6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).     Orum v. Commissioner, supra at 12.
                             - 11 -



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

jurisdiction as to 1995 and 1996 because the petitions were not

filed in response to notices of determination sufficient to

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

6330(d)(1).

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                      An appropriate order of

                                 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

                                 will be entered in docket No.

                                 12136-04L.

                                      An appropriate order and order

                                 of dismissal for lack of

                                 jurisdiction will be entered in

                                 docket No. 12212-04L.
