*206 Order to be issued denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before us on petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1 We shall deny that motion.
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the following:
At the time petitioner timely filed the petition in this case, he resided in Powhatan, Virginia.
On February 5, 2002, respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office) mailed to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection actions(s) under
The Internal Revenue Service mailed a Letter 1058, Final
*207 Notice - Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A
Hearing, on March 7, 2001 concerning the unpaid Federal
income tax (Form 1040) for the periods ending noted above
[taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996]. In response to
the letter you submitted Form 12153, received April 2, 2001,
requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing. Your request was
forwarded to this Appeals Office.
Since you did not respond to the Appeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, we will return you [sic] case to the Collection function
for collection appropriate action.
An attachment to the notice of determination stated in pertinent part:
Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures
least 30 days before the day of levy. Notice CP 523 was mailed
to you via certified mail.
IRS notifies a taxpayer of the opportunity*208 for a hearing with
the IRS Office of Appeals. Notice CP 523 "Notice of Intent
to Levy" was mailed to you via certified mail. You made a
timely request for a hearing.
relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy at the hearing.
Relevant Issues Raised by the Taxpayer
You did not attend the Scheduled hearing and have not responded
to any contact by the Appeals Office.
Balancing Collection and Intrusiveness
The outstanding tax liabilities for 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993
are based on the returns you filed for those years. The 1996
liability is based on information the IRS had on file. * * *
Since you have not responded to any contact by the Appeals
Office, your case will be returned to the Collection function
for appropriate action.
Respondent acknowledges in respondent's response to petitioner's motion: "The February 5, 2002, Notice of Determination did not contain all the statements required by Treas. Reg.
The "Supplemental Notice dated May 1, 2003" referred to in respondent's response to petitioner's motion is a supplemental notice of determination concerning collection actions(s) under
Summary of Determination
The Internal Revenue Service mailed a Letter 1058, Final
Notice - Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A
Hearing, on March 7, 2001 concerning the unpaid Federal
income tax (Form 1040) for the periods ending noted above
[taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996]. In response to
the letter you submitted Form 12153, received April 2, 2001,
requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing. Your request was
forwarded to this Appeals Office.
Since you did not respond to the*210 Appeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, this office issued a Notice of Determination. We are
returning your case to the IRS Area Counsel's office for trial
preparation.
An attachment to the supplemental notice of determination stated in pertinent part:
Legal and Procedural Requirements
The Appeals Officer verified that the applicable laws and
administrative procedures have been met.
a statutory lien when a taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay a
tax liability after notice and demand. Transcripts of the
taxpayer's accounts show the Service Center issued notice and
demand as follows:*211
| Year | Date |
| 1990 | September 21, 1992 |
| 1991 | July 19, 1993 |
| 1992 | August 1, 1994 |
| 1993 | August 1, 1994 |
| 1996 | November 9, 1998 |
assessments were made on the date the notices were issued.
* * * * * * *
This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with respect
to these liabilities * * *.
The outstanding liabilities for 1990-1993 are based on returns
you filed for those years. The 1996 liability is based on a
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. * * * Review of your file shows the
Internal Revenue Service issued the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY on June
5, 1998 for the 1996 taxable year and you did not appeal the
notice.
Validity of the Assessment
The assessments are all valid according to the Appeals Officer's
review of the transcripts of account.
* * * * * * *
Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness
any collection action balance [sic] the need for efficient tax
collection*212 with the legitimate concern that any collection
action be no more intrusive than necessary. You have not
provided an acceptable payment alternative to the proposed levy
action that would satisfy the underpayments. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed levy action balances the
Government's need for effective tax collection with your
legitimate concerns of intrusiveness.
Discussion
In support of petitioner's motion, petitioner argues:
On its face, the * * * [notice of determination] is
invalid: it fails to comply with a notice's specific content
requirements as set forth in Treasury Regulation
1(e)(3)
content requirements as set forth in
issuing the * * * [supplemental notice of determination] to
Petitioner, Respondent has affirmed that the * * * [notice of
determination] is invalid.
The Court's jurisdiction under
*213 depends upon the issuance of a valid Notice of Determination.
valid Notice of Determination has been issued in this case.
Therefore, the Court should dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction. [Reproduced literally.]
In petitioner's memorandum, petitioner elaborates on the foregoing arguments as follows:
The * * * [notice of determination] issued in this case,
inter alia, neglects to set forth Appeals' findings and
decisions; does not resolve the issue raised by Petitioner in
his Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process hearing;
and fails to state whether the IRS met the requirements of any
applicable law or administrative procedure. I.R.C.
E8)(i). [Reproduced literally.]
The Court has jurisdiction to review the determination made under
The notice of determination in the instant case stated:
Since you did not respond to the Appeals Officer's request for
information nor attend the scheduled conference on October 9,
2001, we will return you [sic] case to the Collection function
for collection appropriate action.
We hold that the notice of determination embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of petitioner's tax liability for each of his taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996. We further hold that we have jurisdiction to review that determination in the instant case. 2
*215 We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of petitioner that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order denying petitioner's motion will be issued.
Footnotes
1. Petitioner filed a memorandum (petitioner's memorandum) in support of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (We shall refer collectively to that motion and that memorandum as petitioner's motion.)↩
2. Respondent's acknowledgement in respondent's response to petitioner's motion that the notice of determination "did not contain all the statements required by Treas. Reg.
section 301.6330-1(e)(3) Q&A-E8↩ " does not affect our jurisdiction to review the determination in that notice to proceed with the collection of petitioner's tax liability for each of his taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996.