                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-171



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  MICHAEL EISLER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 16470-06S.              Filed September 27, 2007.



     Michael Eisler, pro se.

     Jason M. Kuratnik, for respondent.



     CHABOT, Judge:   This matter is before us on respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the

petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section

6330(d)1 or section 7502.    The instant case is a collection case



     1
      Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to
sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for
proceedings commenced on the day the petition in the instant case
was filed.
                                - 2 -

brought under section 6330(d), and petitioner requested that

proceedings be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section

7463.   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is

not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be

treated as precedent for any other case.

     The issue for decision is whether the notice of

determination was sent to petitioner’s last known address.

                              Background

     When the petition was filed in the instant case, petitioner

resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.     Petitioner’s address in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is, and at all times pertinent to the

instant proceeding has been, in ZIP Code 19111.

     The notice of determination was sent to petitioner by

certified mail on June 20, 2006, and addressed to the correct

street and number in Philadelphia, but the ZIP Code in the

address was shown as 19114.    As a result of the U.S. Postal

Service’s computer-assisted procedures, that notice of

determination was processed as though the ZIP Code was 19111.

Delivery was attempted, unsuccessfully, on June 23, 2006, and a

notice of attempted delivery was left at petitioner’s correct

address.   The notice of determination was returned to respondent

as “unclaimed” on July 8, 2006.

     Petitioner was hospitalized from about June 10 to about July

20, 2006, and so did not receive the notice of determination.
                                  - 3 -

     The petition is dated August 9, 2006, and was received by

the Court and filed on August 22, 2006.     The envelope in which

the petition was enclosed bears a U.S. Postal Service postmark of

August 15, 2006.



     The notice of determination was sent to petitioner’s last

known address.

     The petition was filed more than 30 days after respondent

sent the notice of determination.

                               Discussion

     Section 6330(d)(1) provides that this Court has jurisdiction

to review a determination under section 6330 if the taxpayer

appeals “within 30 days of [the] determination”.

     This Court’s jurisdiction in such 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 that the Congress specifically authorized in

subsections (a) and (b) of section 6212 for sending notices of

deficiency should suffice for section 6330(d) notices of

determination.     Id.   Accordingly, a section 6330(d) notice of

determination is sufficient if it is sent by certified or
                                - 4 -

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 (1983); Zenco Engineering Corp.

v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 321-322 (1980), affd. without

published opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1981).

     Because of the Court’s concern about jurisdiction, we

directed the parties to consider whether respondent’s use of an

incorrect ZIP Code in addressing the notice of determination

affected the validity of the notice of determination.      See

Normac, Inc. & Normac International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,

146-147 (1988).

     The unrebutted evidence submitted by respondent is that in

the instant case the notice of determination was attempted to be

delivered to the correct address and ZIP Code.   The error in the

ZIP Code shown on the notice of determination envelope was

corrected by the U.S. Postal Service and did not affect the

timely attempted delivery of the notice of determination.

     Consequently, we find that the notice of determination was

sent to petitioner’s last known address.
                                 - 5 -

     The petition in the instant case was filed on August 22,

2006, more than 30 days after June 20, 2006, the date the notice

of determination was sent.   The petition was untimely even taking

into account the possible effect of section 7502, relating to

timely mailing being treated as timely filing.       The postmark date

is August 15, 2006, well past the 30-day period for timely

petitions.   This statutory 30-day period is jurisdictional and

cannot be extended.   McCune v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 114 (2000).

     Accordingly, the petition was not filed timely, and we must

dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Respondent’s motion to

                                         dismiss will be granted, and

                                         an appropriate order will be

                                         entered dismissing the instant

                                         case for lack of jurisdiction.
