                        T.C. Memo. 2008-122



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  J. DAVID GOLUB, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6191-06L.               Filed April 30, 2008.



     J. David Golub, pro se.

     Shawna A. Early, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     GALE, Judge:   This matter is before the Court on

respondent’s motion to withdraw respondent’s motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction.1   As explained in detail below, we




     1
        Section references are to sections of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
                                 - 2 -

shall grant respondent’s motion to withdraw, and respondent’s

motion to dismiss shall be deemed withdrawn.

                            Background

     Petitioner previously filed with the Court a petition for

redetermination of a deficiency at docket No. 26507-95,

challenging a notice of deficiency for the taxable years 1991 and

1992.   In Golub v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-288, we held

that petitioner was liable for a substantial income tax

deficiency for 1991, a smaller income tax deficiency for 1992,

accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1991 and

1992, and a penalty under section 6673.    Although petitioner

appealed the decision in Golub, his appeal was subsequently

dismissed, and the decision is now final.    See secs. 7481(a)(2),

7483.

     On March 30, 2005, respondent submitted to the County Clerk

for Richmond County, Staten Island, New York, a notice of Federal

tax lien (NFTL) in respect of petitioner’s unpaid Federal income

tax for the taxable year 1991.    On April 7, 2005, respondent sent

to petitioner, by certified mail to petitioner’s last known

address, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Notice of Your

Right to a Hearing (hearing rights notice).    On April 12, 2005,

the County Clerk filed the NFTL.    On May 9, 2005, petitioner
                                - 3 -

mailed to respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due

Process Hearing.

     On December 27, 2005, following an exchange of

correspondence, petitioner attended a face-to-face hearing at

respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals Office).    On February 23,

2006, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Determination

Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330

(notice of determination) sustaining the decision to file the

NFTL.    On March 29, 2006, petitioner filed with the Court a

timely petition challenging respondent’s notice of

determination.2

     After filing an answer to the petition, respondent filed a

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.    Respondent asserted

in the motion to dismiss that he

     failed to provide the taxpayer with a notice of his
     right to collection due process hearing pursuant to
     I.R.C. §6320. Therefore, the hearing afforded to the
     taxpayer by the Appeals Officer regarding the filing of
     the notice of federal tax lien was invalid with respect
     petitioner’s 1991 income tax liability, and the notice
     of determination is void and invalid.

Petitioner filed an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.

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

During the hearing, the Court questioned the appropriateness of




     2
        The petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing
a timely U.S. Postal Service postmark date of Mar. 24, 2006. See
sec. 7502(a).
                               - 4 -

respondent’s motion to dismiss and directed respondent to file a

supplement thereto.

     After further review respondent found a copy of the hearing

rights notice sent by certified mail to petitioner on April 7,

2005.   As a consequence, rather than supplementing his motion to

dismiss, respondent filed a motion to withdraw it.   In his motion

to withdraw the motion to dismiss, respondent now asserts that he

timely mailed the hearing rights notice to petitioner and

petitioner timely invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under sections

6320 and 6330.   Petitioner filed an opposition to respondent’s

motion to withdraw in which he asserts that he has been denied

due process.   Respondent thereafter filed a supplement to his

motion to withdraw clarifying that respondent had submitted the

NFTL to the County Clerk on March 30, 2005, and that the County

Clerk had filed it on April 12, 2005.

                            Discussion

     Section 6321 provides that if any person liable to pay any

tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the tax and

any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable

penalty shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all

property and rights to property, whether real or personal,

belonging to such person.   The lien imposed under section 6321

generally arises at the time the assessment is made and continues

until the tax liability is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by
                                - 5 -

reason of lapse of time.    Sec. 6322.   However, the tax lien

imposed under section 6321 is not valid against third parties,

such as any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s

lienor, or judgment lien creditor, until the Secretary files

notice of the tax lien with the proper State or Federal

authorities.    Sec. 6323(a), (f).

     Sections 6320 and 6330 establish procedural protections for

taxpayers when the Commissioner elects to file an NFTL under

section 6323.    Specifically, section 6320(a) provides that, not

more than 5 business days after the day an NFTL is filed, the

Commissioner is obliged to provide written notice by, inter alia,

certified or registered mail to the taxpayer’s last known

address, informing the taxpayer of his or her right to request an

Appeals Office hearing during the 30-day period beginning on the

day after the 5-day period prescribed in section 6320(a)(2).

Section 6320(c) provides that the procedures set forth in section

6330(c), (d), and (e) generally are applicable in the case of tax

liens.

     The specific requirements and procedures governing the

administrative hearing (which we need not recite for purposes of

the present discussion) are set forth in section 6330(c).

Pursuant to these procedures, the Appeals Office must make a

collection determination after reviewing the record, including

any relevant issues raised by the taxpayer, and considering
                                - 6 -

whether the collection action balances the need for efficient

collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer

that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

Sec. 6330(c)(3).   After the Appeals Office makes a determination

under section 6330(c), the taxpayer may petition the Tax Court

for review within 30 days of that determination.   Sec. 6330(d).

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

exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

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

discussed above, the Court’s jurisdiction to review a collection

action concerning an NFTL or a proposed levy depends on the

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

petition for review.    See Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122,

125 (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).

     In Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 261 (2001), we

dismissed a lien case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that

the Commissioner did not issue to the taxpayer a notice of

determination that would permit the taxpayer to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction.   In dismissing the case, however, we made

it clear that the Commissioner failed to mail a hearing rights

notice to the taxpayer’s last known address as required under

section 6320(a)(2)(C), thereby denying the taxpayer the

opportunity to timely seek an Appeals Office hearing.     Id.   The
                              - 7 -

facts in the instant case are distinguishable from those in

Kennedy.

     The record shows that on March 30, 2005, respondent

submitted to the County Clerk for Richmond County an NFTL

regarding petitioner’s unpaid income tax for 1991, yet the County

Clerk did not actually file the document until April 12, 2005.

The record does not disclose the reason for the delay.    In any

event, on April 7, 2005, respondent sent a hearing rights notice

by certified mail to petitioner’s last known address.    The

hearing rights notice was mailed 6 business days after

respondent’s submission of the NFTL to the County Clerk and 3

business days before its filing.   Petitioner mailed to respondent

a Form 12153 requesting an Appeals Office hearing on May 9, 2005,

which fell within the 30-day period that began on the day

following the fifth business day after the filing of the NFTL.

Thereafter, petitioner attended a face-to-face Appeals Office

hearing regarding this matter, respondent mailed to petitioner a

notice of determination (sustaining the decision to file the

NFTL), and petitioner filed with the Court a timely petition

challenging respondent’s notice of determination.   Thus, unlike

the circumstances in Kennedy v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner

received a hearing rights notice in time to request a hearing,

and he did so.
                               - 8 -

     On these facts, we conclude that the basic elements

necessary to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under sections 6320

and 6330--a valid notice of determination and a timely petition

for review--are present.   Simply put, respondent’s mailing of the

hearing rights notice 3 days before the NFTL was filed did not

adversely affect petitioner’s right to seek administrative and

judicial review of the filing of the NFTL, and we hold that the

notice of determination upon which this case is based is valid.

Consequently, we shall grant respondent’s motion to withdraw his

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

     Jurisdiction aside, we note for the sake of completeness

that we have previously rejected taxpayer claims that the

Commissioner’s failure to send a hearing rights notice within the

5-day period prescribed in section 6320(a)(2) constitutes an

abuse of discretion.   See Bruce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-

161; Call v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-289, affd. 230 Fed.

Appx. 758 (9th Cir. 2007); Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2004-124.   In each of these cases the taxpayer managed to submit

to the Commissioner a timely request for an Appeals Office

hearing despite the taxpayer’s claim that the Commissioner was

dilatory in sending a hearing rights notice.   Given that the

taxpayers received hearings, were issued notices of

determination, and filed with the Court timely petitions for

review of the collection actions, we held that any failure by the
                                 - 9 -

Commissioner to send hearing rights notices before expiration of

the 5-day period prescribed in section 6320(a)(2) was harmless

error and did not constitute an abuse of discretion;       we

accordingly sustained the filing of the NFTLs.

     In this case, respondent’s hearing rights notice was not

late but early, effectively affording petitioner a lengthier

period in which to request an Appeals Office hearing.       Petitioner

timely did so, and he received a hearing.       Consistent with our

reasoning in cases such as Bruce v. Commissioner, supra, Call v.

Commissioner, supra, and Stein v. Commissioner, supra, we

conclude that respondent’s variance, if any, from the notice

requirement prescribed in section 6320(a)(2) constitutes harmless

error in this case.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         An appropriate order will

                                 be issued.
