## Facts

- The IRS assessed federal income tax liabilities against Joseph D. and Wanda S. Lunsford and issued a notice of intent to levy under I.R.C. § 6330.
- The Lunsfords timely requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, principally disputing whether the IRS had made valid assessments and maintained a proper summary record of assessment under I.R.C. § 6203 and related procedures.
- The IRS Appeals Office handled the matter through correspondence rather than an in-person conference, provided a Form 4340 reflecting the assessments, and invited the Lunsfords to raise additional issues; they did not.
- Appeals issued a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy.
- The Lunsfords timely petitioned the United States Tax Court under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1).
- In the Tax Court, the Lunsfords argued that perceived defects in the CDP process and/or assessment procedures meant there was no valid “hearing” or assessment and therefore no Tax Court jurisdiction to review the determination.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tax Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1) depends on the existence of a procedurally proper CDP hearing and valid assessments, or instead attaches upon issuance of a notice of determination and a timely petition.

## Decision

- The Tax Court held it had jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1).
- The court ruled that jurisdiction is triggered by a notice of determination and a timely petition, not by a preliminary judicial inquiry into whether Appeals conducted a “proper” CDP hearing or whether assessment procedures were flawlessly executed.
- Alleged defects in the CDP hearing process or assessment verification were treated as matters for merits review, not as jurisdictional prerequisites.
- To the extent prior precedent suggested the court must “look behind” a determination to confirm a proper hearing as a condition of jurisdiction, the court rejected that approach.

## Legal Principles

- Tax Court jurisdiction in a CDP case is established when (i) Appeals issues a notice of determination under I.R.C. § 6330 and (ii) the taxpayer timely files a petition under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1).
- Claimed procedural deficiencies in the CDP hearing (including the form of the hearing) and claimed flaws in assessment procedures do not defeat jurisdiction; they are addressed, if at all, as merits challenges to the determination.
- The court’s CDP review is limited to issues properly raised by the taxpayer and adequately specified in the petition under the Tax Court’s pleading rules.

## Conclusion

The Tax Court concluded it had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the IRS’s CDP determination because a notice of determination was issued and the petition was timely, and it treated alleged defects in the hearing or assessment process as potential merits issues rather than jurisdictional barriers.


Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159 (2001)