That is not an authentic Roman numeral.
While the above answer is quite correct, that "LXXL" is not a true Roman Numeral, one might wish to consider a possible misreading of the number as you have transcribed it. "LXXL" is surprisingly commonly mistaken for what ought to be "LXXI," instead. If this proves the case, then the number would then be a true Roman Numeral, the one standing for "71" (seventy one).
you write 71 as LXXl and 20 as XX
It is an invalid Roman numeral therefore there is no equivalent Hindu-Arabic numeral but if you meant XX then it is 20 * * * * * Or, if you meant LXXI, then 71
988 = CMLXXXVIII in Roman numerals
it means 1,150 in roman numerals
Those Roman Numerals mean 1991.
you write 71 as LXXl and 20 as XX
It is an invalid Roman numeral therefore there is no equivalent Hindu-Arabic numeral but if you meant XX then it is 20 * * * * * Or, if you meant LXXI, then 71
988 = CMLXXXVIII in Roman numerals
it means 1,150 in roman numerals
Those Roman Numerals mean 1991.
Not a valid sequence for Roman numerals
It does not mean anything because it is an invalid arrangement of Roman numerals
"D" in Roman Numerals equals 500.
Roman numerals don't have a 0 symbol and so it is an invalid arrangement of Roman numerals
In Roman numerals, it means N M C.
XL1 in roman numerals stand for 41.
The Roman numerals MCMXCVI stands for 1996