                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-11



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          JOHN M. AND PATRICIA M. LANE, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15949-07S.              Filed January 13, 2009.



     John M. and Patricia M. Lane, pro sese.

     Gordon P. Sanz, for respondent.



     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed.    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


     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

case.   This case is before the Court, pursuant to Rule 53, on

respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground of mootness

(respondent’s motion).

                            Background

     On August 15, 2005, respondent mailed petitioners a Notice

of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6330

regarding their income tax liability for 2002 (levy notice).     On

August 18, 2005, the levy notice was delivered to petitioners.

Petitioners submitted to respondent an untimely Form 12153,

Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding the levy

notice.   Respondent gave petitioners an equivalent hearing

regarding the levy, and respondent issued a Decision Letter

Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of

the Internal Revenue Code (decision letter) to petitioners

sustaining the levy for 2002.

     On November 8, 2006, respondent mailed petitioners a Notice

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

6320 regarding their income tax liability for 2002.   On November

18, 2006, petitioners timely submitted their hearing request

regarding the notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL).   Respondent held

a section 6330 hearing regarding the NFTL.   Respondent’s Office

of Appeals (Appeals) issued petitioners a Notice of Determination

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

(notice of determination) determining that all legal and
                                 - 3 -

procedural requirements were followed prior to filing the NFTL

regarding 2002, and that the filing of the NFTL was appropriate.

     Petitioners have paid the 2002 tax liability in full,

including all penalties and interest.    On February 26, 2007,

respondent released the lien.

     Petitioners timely filed their petition.     At the time the

petition was filed, petitioners resided in Texas.

                            Discussion

     Section 6320(a)(1) 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(a) and (b) further provides that the

taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the

form of a hearing) within a 30-day period.    The hearing generally

shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in

section 6330(c), (d), and (e).    Sec. 6320(c).

     Section 6330(a) provides that the Secretary shall furnish

taxpayers with written notice of their right to a hearing before

any property is levied upon.    Section 6330 further provides that

the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in

the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period.     Sec.

6330(a) and (b).

     Like the taxpayers in Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 11

(2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005), petitioners did not
                                - 4 -

timely request a collection hearing in response to the levy

notice.   Under the circumstances, respondent was not obliged to

conduct a collection hearing pursuant to section 6330.     See Orum

v. Commissioner, supra at 11.     As a result, we conclude that the

decision in the decision letter is not a determination for

purposes of section 6330(d)(1).    See Orum v. Commissioner, supra

at 12; cf. Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 259 (2002)

(holding that a decision letter contained a “determination” such

that the taxpayer could invoke the Court’s jurisdiction because

the taxpayer timely requested a section 6330 hearing).

     In place of a section 6330 hearing regarding the levy for

2002, Appeals granted petitioners an equivalent hearing.

Thereafter, Appeals issued a decision letter to petitioners

stating that the proposed collection action was sustained.    The

decision letter does not constitute a notice of determination

under section 6330(d)(1) that would provide a basis for

petitioners to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to

the levy notice.   See Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 270

(2001); Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 263 (2001).

     Petitioners timely requested a hearing regarding the NFTL,

respondent held a section 6330 hearing regarding the NFTL, and

Appeals issued petitioners a notice of determination determining

that the filing of the NFTL was appropriate.    However,

petitioners paid the 2002 tax liability in full (including all
                               - 5 -

penalties and interest), and on February 26, 2007, respondent

released the lien.   Accordingly, this issue is moot.    See Greene-

Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7 (2006).

     In conclusion, we shall grant respondent’s motion.     To

reflect the foregoing,


                                            An appropriate order of

                                       dismissal will be entered.
