Candice T. Whitman, Petitioner

W T .C . Summary Opinion 21008-6 6

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T

CANDICE T . WHITMAN, Petit'oner v .

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t 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 th e provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effec t when the petition was filed .'

Pursuant to section 7463 ( b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, an d 'Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended , and as , in effect when the petition was filed .

SERVED JUN 1 2'2008,

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, 2007 . On August 3, 2007, the Court filed respondent's motion t o dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . On August 27, 2007, the Cour t filed petitioner's objection to the moti on . A hearing was hel d 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 th e 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) o f section 6212 for sending notices of defic4iency will suffice fo r section 6330(d) notices of determination .'!

Weber v . Commissioner , supra at 261 . Accordingly, a notice of determination i s sufficient if it is sent by certified orlregistered mail to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address .

Id . at 261-262 .

The effect of the "shall be sufficient" language in sectio n 6212(b)(1) is to provide a safe harbor assuring the Commissione r 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 Enaa . 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 no t 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 .

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 or lack of Jurisdiction will be entered .