1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to

the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code.

 T.C. Memo. 2007-316

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

MARVIN SILVERMAN, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 13629-05L. Filed October 18, 2007.

Marvin Silverman, pro se.

Gavin L. Greene, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1
- 2 -

Background

At the time he filed the petition, petitioner resided in

Beverly Hills, California. 

On January 11, 1995, respondent mailed petitioner a notice

of deficiency determining deficiencies and additions to tax for

1989 and 1990. On September 22, 2003, respondent mailed

petitioner a notice of deficiency determining a deficiency and

additions to tax for 1998. The record does not establish that

petitioner received either notice of deficiency.

On June 29, 2001, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to

chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ch. 13, in the

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. 

In the bankruptcy case, respondent filed a proof of claim and

multiple amended proofs of claim against petitioner regarding

petitioner’s assessed income tax liabilities for 1989, 1990, and

1998. On May 26, 2004, petitioner’s bankruptcy case was

dismissed. 

On December 30, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a Final

Notice-–Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a

Hearing regarding petitioner’s outstanding 1989, 1990, and 1998

income tax liabilities. On January 18, 2005, petitioner sent

respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process

Hearing (hearing request). Petitioner attached to the hearing
- 3 -

request a letter containing frivolous and groundless arguments. 

Petitioner did not propose any collection alternatives. 

On April 11, 2005, Appeals Account Resolution Specialist

Sophie Tittle sent petitioner a letter advising him that the

issues he raised were frivolous or were issues that the Appeals

Office does not consider. Ms. Tittle scheduled a telephone

conference for May 10, 2005. Ms. Tittle reviewed petitioner’s

administrative file for 1989, 1990, and 1998 and confirmed that

respondent had complied with all applicable laws and

administrative procedures. On May 10, 2005, Settlement Officer

Lupe Silva called petitioner at the telephone number listed on

petitioner’s hearing request; however, the phone number no longer

was in service. 

 Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination

Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330

regarding his 1989, 1990, and 1998 tax years. In the notice of

determination, respondent sustained the proposed collection

action. 

Discussion

I. Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary

judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. 

Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is

demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact
- 4 -

and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b);

Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd.

17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). 

We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of

law.

II. Determination To Proceed With Collection

Section 6330(a) provides that the Secretary shall furnish

taxpayers with written notice of their right to a hearing before

any property is levied upon. Section 6330 further provides that

the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in

the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec.

6330(a) and (b).

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 liabilities, the

taxpayer is precluded from challenging the existence or amount of

the underlying tax liabilities. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v.
- 5 -

Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at

182-183.

If Commissioner submits a proof of claim for unpaid Federal

tax liabilities in a taxpayer’s bankruptcy action, the taxpayer

has had the opportunity to dispute the liabilities for purposes

of section 6330(c)(2)(B). See Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124

T.C. 69 (2005); Hassell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-196;

Drake v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-151; Sabath v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-222. In petitioner’s bankruptcy

proceeding, respondent submitted proofs of claim for petitioner’s

unpaid income tax liabilities for 1989, 1990, and 1998. 

Petitioner did not dispute these tax liabilities. Accordingly,

petitioner cannot challenge his underlying liabilities herein. 

Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a

valid 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). 

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent did not commit any abuse

of discretion, and we sustain respondent’s determination to

proceed with collection. 

 To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.