T.C. Memo. 2002-106

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SUSAN P. OBERSTELLER, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7693-01L. Filed April 29, 2002.

Susan P. Obersteller, pro se.

T. Richard Sealy III and Catherine Tyson, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWIFT, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent’s

motion under Rule 121 for summary judgment.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and

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

Procedure. 
- 2 -

The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his

discretion in relying upon transcripts of account to verify

assessment of petitioner’s tax liabilities for purposes of

section 6330(c)(1). 

Background

At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in

Portland, Texas.

On August 29, 2000, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax

Lien (lien filing) against petitioner relating to petitioner’s

assessed and unpaid Federal income taxes for 1992 and 1993.

On September 20, 2000, petitioner timely submitted to

respondent’s Appeals Office a written request for a collection

hearing under section 6320 to challenge respondent’s lien filing. 

In petitioner’s written request, petitioner did not identify any

specific issues or the basis for any specific challenges to

respondent’s lien filing.

On January 11 and 31, 2001, respondent’s Appeals Office

mailed letters to petitioner inviting petitioner to meet

personally with respondent’s Appeals officer, and respondent

enclosed with those letters copies of petitioner’s transcripts of

account for 1992 and 1993 (Form MEFTRA) and a “plain language”

computer printout of petitioner’s account for 1992 and 1993 (the

individual master file (IMF)). 
- 3 -

Between January 24 and May 7, 2001, petitioner, petitioner's

spouse, and petitioner’s legal representative exchanged a number

of letters with respondent’s Appeals officer in which petitioner

explained that petitioner would only be satisfied if respondent

provided to petitioner not the above transcripts of account but

specifically “Forms 23C, Summary Record of Assessments” relating

to petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1992 and 1993. 

In his letters, respondent’s Appeals officer made it clear

that respondent was relying on the above referenced transcripts

of account, not “Forms 23C”, to verify the assessments that were

the bases for the lien filing, and that respondent was willing to

meet face-to-face with petitioner and petitioner’s spouse and

representative and to make available to petitioner additional

copies of those transcripts. Respondent’s letters also suggested

specific dates for a face-to-face meeting, but petitioner and

petitioner’s representative refused to meet with respondent’s

Appeals officer unless a commitment was made by the Appeals

officer to obtain and to have at the meeting a copy of

“Forms 23C” relating to petitioner’s 1992 and 1993 Federal income

taxes.

On May 17, 2001, respondent’s Appeals Office mailed to

petitioner’s representative a notice of determination in which it

was explained that the above lien filing made by respondent with
- 4 -

respect to petitioner’s assessed and unpaid taxes for 1992 and

1993 was sustained. 

On June 15, 2001, petitioner filed, under section

6330(d)(1), a petition for judicial review of the above final

determination made by respondent regarding collection of

petitioner’s assessed and unpaid taxes for 1992 and 1993. On

July 16, 2001, petitioner filed an amended petition.

Discussion

Petitioner asserts that, because respondent refused to

provide a copy of a signed “Form 23C” at the collection hearing,

respondent’s Appeals officer failed to properly verify under

section 6330(c)(1) that respondent’s lien filing met the

requirements of “any applicable law or administrative procedure”.

We have repeatedly held that, absent irregularities,

respondent may rely on Forms 4340 and transcripts of account for

the purpose, under section 6330(c)(1), of verifying data relevant

to respondent’s assessments of tax deficiencies against

taxpayers. Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002);

Lindsey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87; Howard v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-81; Holliday v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2002-67; Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-53; Mann

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. 

In the alternative, petitioner asserts generally that she

did not receive the type of “due process” hearing that is
- 5 -

anticipated under section 6330. To the contrary, petitioner and

petitioner’s representative were repeatedly notified of

respondent’s willingness to meet, of suggested dates and times

for a meeting, and of respondent’s willingness to consider any

specific, good faith issues raised by petitioner under section

6330(c)(2).

Petitioner makes only frivolous arguments.

Respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in

sustaining respondent’s lien filing. We shall grant respondent’s

motion for summary judgment.

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.