T.C. Memo. 2008-119
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DORIS DENISE O’DANIEL, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21927-05L. Filed April 29, 2008.
Doris Denise O’Daniel, pro se.
Elke E. Franklin, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner
seeks review of respondent’s determination to sustain the filing
of a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) for 1999. After
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
- 2 -
concessions,2 the sole issue remaining for decision is whether
petitioner’s request for interest abatement is properly before
the Court.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts, the stipulation of settled issues, and
the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
At the time she filed the petition, petitioner resided in Texas.
On April 19, 2005, respondent filed an NFTL regarding
petitioner’s 1999 tax year.
On April 20, 2005, respondent mailed petitioner a Notice of
Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC
6320 regarding 1999.
Petitioner timely sent respondent a Form 12153, Request for
a Collection Due Process Hearing regarding 1999 (hearing
request). On the hearing request, petitioner left blank the
space to explain her disagreement with the NFTL. Petitioner did
not attach any statement explaining her disagreement with the
NFTL or attach any other document to the hearing request.
2
Respondent and petitioner agree that (1) petitioner’s
income tax liability for 1999 is $3,737; (2) petitioner is
entitled to $2,544 of withholding credits for 1999 which reduces
petitioner’s balance due for 1999, excluding interest, to $1,193;
and (3) petitioner is not liable for additions to tax pursuant to
sec. 6651(a)(1) or (2) for 1999.
- 3 -
On August 30, 2005, respondent mailed petitioner a letter
acknowledging petitioner’s request for a section 6330 hearing
(hearing). Settlement Officer Deborah Glover scheduled a
telephone hearing with petitioner for September 21, 2005.
On September 21, 2005, Settlement Officer Glover called
petitioner to conduct the hearing but was unable to contact her.
That same day, Settlement Officer Glover mailed petitioner a
“last chance letter” offering her the opportunity to reschedule
the hearing and send any information she wanted considered. She
advised petitioner that if she did not hear from petitioner
within 14 days, then Appeals would make a determination “by
reviewing the Collection administrative file and whatever
information you have already provided.” Petitioner did not
respond to the “last chance letter” and never spoke to anyone at
Appeals.
On October 21, 2005, respondent issued a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 to petitioner regarding 1999. In the notice of
determination, respondent determined to sustain the filing of the
NFTL for 1999.
On November 21, 2005, petitioner petitioned the Court,
raising issues regarding her underlying liability for 1999.
Petitioner did not raise the issue of interest abatement in the
petition.
- 4 -
OPINION
Section 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the
person described in section 6321 with written notice (i.e., the
hearing notice) of the filing of a notice of lien under section
6323. Section 6320 further provides that the taxpayer may
request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a
hearing) within a 30-day period. The hearing generally shall be
conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section
6330(c), (d), and (e). Sec. 6320(c).
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at
the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the
Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses,
challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended
collection action, and alternative means of collection. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 180 (2000). If a taxpayer received a statutory notice
of deficiency for the years in issue or otherwise had the
opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability, the taxpayer
is precluded from challenging the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at
182-183.
Petitioner, however, raised the issue of interest abatement
only after the parties reached an agreement on petitioner’s
- 5 -
liability for income taxes and additions to tax for 1999.
Petitioner did not raise this issue in the hearing request, at
the hearing, or in the petition. Accordingly, we conclude that
petitioner’s claim for interest abatement is not properly before
the Court. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007);
Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002).
Petitioner failed to make a challenge to the appropriateness
of respondent’s intended collection action or offer alternative
means of collection. These issues are now deemed conceded. See
Rule 331(b)(4).
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.