142 T.C. 425">*426 CHIECHI, Judge: These cases arise from petitions filed in response to respective notices of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330¹ dated November 3, 2011, and June 25, 2012, with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

The only issue presented here is whether petitioner is entitled under section 6330(c)(2)(B) to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006.^{22014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*29} ¶ We hold that he is not.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

At all2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*30 relevant times, including when he filed the respective petitions in these cases, petitioner's legal residence was 222 North Columbus Drive, No. 1507, Chicago, Illinois 60601 (Columbus Drive apartment).³

Petitioner timely filed a tax return for his taxable year 2006. In that return, petitioner reported total tax of $1,606 for that year.

At a time not established by the record, petitioner submitted to respondent an amended tax return for his taxable year 2006 (September 23, 2008 amended 2006 return) that his return preparer had signed and dated September 23, 2008. In that amended return, petitioner reported, inter alia, an increase of $2,168 in his tax liability for his taxable year 2006 or total tax of $3,774 (petitioner's reported increased 2006 tax liability). Respondent filed and processed petitioner's September 23, 2008 amended 2006 return and changed petitioner's tax liability in respondent's2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*31 records to reflect petitioner's reported increased 2006 tax liability of $3,774.

At a time not established by the record, but after respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency for his taxable years 2006 and 2007 (discussed below), petitioner submitted to respondent a second amended tax return for his taxable year 2006 (June 23, 2011 amended 2006 return) that his return preparer had signed and dated June 23, 2011. In that amended return, petitioner reported, inter alia, an increase of $11,255 in his tax liability for his taxable year 2006 or total tax of $15,029. Respondent did not file and process petitioner's June 23, 2011 amended 2006 tax return, which, as noted above, petitioner filed after respondent issued the notice of deficiency for his taxable years 2006 and 2007.

142 T.C. 425">*428 An agent of respondent (examining agent) conducted an examination of petitioner's taxable years 2006 and 2007. Respondent proposed certain adjustments to petitioner's September 23, 2008 amended 2006 return on the basis of that examination. A representative (Appeals officer) of respondent's Appeals Office in Chicago, Illinois, contacted petitioner by letter addressed to his Columbus Drive apartment and scheduled2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*32 a meeting with him to discuss those proposed adjustments. Petitioner did not appear at that scheduled meeting. Thereafter, in the spring or early summer of 2010, the Appeals officer sent petitioner another letter addressed to his Columbus Drive apartment advising him that if he did not contact the Appeals officer within 20 days, a notice of deficiency would be issued to him for his taxable years 2006 and 2007.

On August 6, 2010, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency for his taxable years 2006 and 2007 (2006-2007 notice of deficiency) that was addressed and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to petitioner's Columbus Drive apartment.⁴ In the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency, respondent determined, inter alia, a deficiency in, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) on, petitioner's tax for his taxable year 2006 of $14,987 and $2,997.40, respectively.⁵ Petitioner did not timely file a petition with respect to the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency.

On several2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*33 occasions the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service) attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to deliver the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency to petitioner at the address of his Columbus Drive apartment. On at least two occasions the Postal Service left notices of attempted delivery of certified mail at that address. In those notices, the Postal Service informed petitioner that it had certified mail to deliver to him and that he had to sign a receipt for that mail before the Postal Service would deliver it to him.

At a time not established by the record that was not later than late October or early November 2010,⁶ petitioner 142 T.C. 425">*429 checked his mailbox at his Columbus Drive apartment and found at least two notices of attempted delivery of certified mail from the Postal Service. In those notices, the Postal Service informed petitioner that it had certified mail from a sender, who was not identified on those notices, and that he should retrieve and sign for that certified mail at his local Postal Service office. At the time not established by the record⁷ when petitioner went to his local Postal Service office the certified mail to which the notices from the Postal Service pertained had been returned to the2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*34 sender as unclaimed.

Petitioner spent around 30 to 40% of the period August to December 2010, including sleeping overnight, at his Columbus Drive apartment and the remainder of that period staying with friends. He returned to and stayed at that apartment during each of the months August through October 2010.

At all relevant times, including during the period August to December 2010, petitioner received certain bills online and certain other bills through the Postal Service mail system at his Columbus Drive apartment. Petitioner declined to check on a regular basis his mailbox at that apartment and to retrieve on a regular basis any Postal Service mail items delivered there.2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*35 He usually disregarded and rarely opened the bills that he received through the Postal Service mail system at his Columbus Drive apartment and did not depend on that mail system as a reminder to pay bills that were sent to him through that system. Instead, the reminder that he often used to pay the utility bills that he received through the Postal Service mail system was the utility companies' disconnection of his utilities for failure to pay utility bills that were due.

On May 24, 2011, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) for his taxable years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

142 T.C. 425">*430 On June 6, 2011, respondent received from petitioner Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, with respect to the notice of intent to levy (Form 12153 concerning proposed levy), in which petitioner requested a hearing with respect to that notice.

The settlement officer in respondent's Appeals Office assigned to petitioner's Form 12153 concerning proposed levy spoke with petitioner by telephone about that matter.

On November 3, 2011, respondent's Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*36 concerning collection action(s) under section 6330, in which that office sustained the notice of intent to levy.

On June 7, 2011, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing under I.R.C. 6320 (notice of Federal tax lien filing) for his taxable years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

On July 8, 2011, respondent received from petitioner Form 12153 with respect to the notice of Federal tax lien filing (Form 12153 concerning tax lien filing), in which petitioner requested a hearing with respect to that notice.

On June 5, 2012, after petitioner provided certain documentation to the settlement officer in respondent's Appeals Office assigned to petitioner's Form 12153 concerning tax lien filing, that settlement officer spoke by telephone with petitioner about that matter.

On June 25, 2012, respondent's Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330, in which that office sustained the tax lien filing.

The only issue presented here is whether petitioner is entitled under section 6330(c)(2)(B) to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006.⁸A person may dispute the existence or the amount of the underlying tax liability2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*37 for any tax period if the person did not receive a notice of deficiency for that tax liability or did not otherwise have the opportunity to dispute that tax liability. Id.

It is petitioner's position that he is entitled under section 6330(c)(2)(B) to contest the underlying tax liability for his 142 T.C. 425">*431 taxable year 2006. In support of that position, petitioner contends that although respondent mailed to him by certified mail, return receipt requested, the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency that was addressed to his Columbus Drive apartment,⁹ he did not receive that notice within the 90-day period during which he could have filed a petition with the Court with respect to that notice. In support of that contention, petitioner relies on his testimony at the partial trial in these cases.

Respondent counters that although the Postal Service returned to respondent the 2006-2007 notice after several unsuccessful attempts to deliver it to petitioner at the address of his Columbus Drive apartment, petitioner "chose not to accept delivery." According to respondent, petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not credible and "should be given no weight."

We agree with respondent that petitioner's2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*38 testimony is not credible in certain material respects and thus is unreliable. However, even if we accept petitioner's testimony that he did not know until late October or early November 2010 about the notices from the Postal Service of attempted delivery of certified mail (i.e., the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency) and that when he went to his local Postal Service office with those notices the Postal Service had already returned the certified mail to the sender, we nonetheless reject his contention that he is entitled under section 6330(c)(2)(B) to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006. That is because petitioner's testimony establishes that, even though he spent at his Columbus Drive apartment around 30 to 40% of the period August to December 2010, including staying and sleeping overnight there during each of the months August through October 2010, he declined to check on a regular basis his mailbox at that apartment and to retrieve on a regular basis any Postal Service mail items delivered there. And petitioner did so despite the fact that on August 6, 2010, when respondent mailed to him the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency that was addressed to his Columbus Drive apartment, he2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 28">*39 knew that (1) respondent's Appeals Office in Chicago was considering the adjustments that respondent's examining agent had proposed 142 T.C. 425">*432 with respect to his taxable years 2006 and 2007; (2) an Appeals officer in that office had contacted him by letter and scheduled a meeting with him to discuss those proposed adjustments; (3) he did not appear at that meeting; and (4) thereafter, in the spring or early summer of 2010, that Appeals officer sent him another letter advising him that if he did not contact the Appeals officer within 20 days, a notice of deficiency would be issued to him for his taxable years 2006 and 2007.

On the record before us, we hold that petitioner may not decline to retrieve his Postal Service mail, when he was reasonably able and had multiple opportunities to do so, and thereafter successfully contend that he did not receive for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B) the 2006-2007 notice of deficiency. On that record, we reject petitioner's contention that he is entitled under that section to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006.

To reflect the foregoing,¹⁰

Decisions will be entered for respondent.