T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-22
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DEIRDRE G. MCNAMARA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15050-03S. Filed February 24, 2005.
Deirdre G. McNamara, pro se.
Nancy C. Carver, for respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463.1 The
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
this opinion should not be cited as authority.
Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
- 2 -
(notice of determination) for unpaid Federal income tax and
related liabilities for 1995. The notice of determination
asserts that the unpaid balance is $2,872.79.
The issue for decision is whether respondent’s determination
to proceed with collection action was an abuse of discretion.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioner resided in New York, New York, at the time the
petition was filed.
Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for the taxable
year 1995 on June 17, 1996. The return was examined by
respondent. On May 11, 1998, a notice of deficiency was issued
determining a deficiency in the amount of $2,200 for the taxable
year 1995. A timely petition was filed with this Court (docket
No. 13739-98S) and on March 18, 1999, a decision was entered for
the taxable year 1995 in the amount of $2,200. The decision was
entered pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The
stipulated decision was executed by petitioner and counsel for
respondent. After the decision was entered, petitioner submitted
a check to respondent in the amount of $2,816.47. The check was
not honored by the bank due to insufficient funds.
On January 26, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a final
notice of intent to levy and right to a collection due process
hearing. Petitioner timely filed with respondent a Form 12153,
- 3 -
Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. As a basis for her
disagreement with respondent’s proposed collection action
petitioner asserts, among other things, that “govt. agencies
colluded in egregious civil & human rights abuses against me & my
family”. By letter dated November 27, 2001, the Appeals officer
invited petitioner to submit additional relevant information
relating to the issues that could be considered. In this
connection, a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement, was
provided to petitioner so that she could present collection
alternatives to respondent. Petitioner responded by letter dated
December 8, 2001. The letter does not contain any information or
assertions that could reasonably be considered as an appropriate
challenge to respondent’s collection action. As a result, on
February 11, 2002, respondent issued a notice of determination,
wherein he concluded that respondent could proceed with the
proposed collection action.
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d).
Petitioner received a notice of deficiency, and she timely filed
a petition with this Court. A decision was entered with respect
to the taxable year 1995 based on the agreement of the parties.
Since the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at
issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego
- 4 -
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000); Wooten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-113. In so doing, we do not conduct an independent review
of what would be an appropriate collection alternative. Van
Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-346. We review only
whether the Appeals officer’s determination was arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to a hearing in
which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection
alternatives such as an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(b) and
(c)(2). In the present case, petitioner appears to contend that
respondent should not proceed with collection because of abuses
she and her family have suffered by various Government agencies.
Petitioner does not otherwise present any argument that the
Appeals officer’s actions were an abuse of discretion.
On the basis of the information considered by the Appeals
officer, we cannot conclude that the Appeals officer’s
determination to proceed with collection action was an abuse of
discretion. See Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-318; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290;
Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. Indeed, when the
- 5 -
Court asked petitioner to explain why she disagreed with
respondent’s proposed collection action, petitioner failed to
provide any meaningful explanation. We are satisfied that
respondent did not abuse his discretion in making his
determination.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To give effect to the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.