1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,

and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice

and Procedure.

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
- 2 -

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. 

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. 
- 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.