1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the

(continued...)

T.C. Memo. 2007-52

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

THEODORE SKERIOTIS, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 13041-05L. Filed March 6, 2007.

Theodore Skeriotis, pro se.

Russell F. Kurdys, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THORNTON, Judge: Petitioner seeks review pursuant to

sections 6320(c) and 6330(d) of respondent’s determination

sustaining the filing of a tax lien with respect to petitioner’s

Federal income taxes for 2000 and 2001.1 Respondent filed a
- 2 -

1(...continued)

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section

6673. We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

Background

The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the

following.

In 2003, respondent sent petitioner notices of deficiency

with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 2000 and 2001.

Petitioner received the notices but did not petition the Tax

Court with respect to these notices.

Respondent assessed the deficiencies and sent petitioner

notices of tax due and demand letters. On August 4, 2004,

respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing

and Your Right to a Hearing under section 6320. On September 7,

2004, respondent received petitioner’s Form 12153, Request for a

Collection Due Process Hearing. In this request, petitioner

stated that he “would need to see” certain documents “before I am

persuaded that I am legally obligated to pay the taxes at issue”. 

The documents requested included a summary record of assessment,

a copy of the notice and demand for payment, and the “pocket

commission” of the IRS employee who signed the notice of lien.
- 3 -

By letter dated April 8, 2005, respondent’s Appeals officer

informed petitioner that his arguments in his hearing request

were either frivolous or groundless or issues that the Office of

Appeals does not consider. The letter informed petitioner that

the Office of Appeals would not provide a face-to-face hearing to

discuss these issues. The letter offered petitioner the option

of a hearing by telephone or correspondence. In the alternative,

the letter suggested various legitimate issues that could be

discussed in a face-to-face conference and gave petitioner

another opportunity to describe the legitimate issues petitioner

would want to raise at a face-to-face conference. Petitioner

responded with three more letters, requesting additional

materials, including a copy of the Appeals officer’s oath of

office. 

On June 3, 2005, the Appeals Office issued its notice of

determination, sustaining the tax lien. In an attachment to the

notice, the Appeals officer stated that she had verified the

proper assessment of petitioner’s liabilities by reviewing

respondent’s Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) and also

verified that notice and demand for payment had been made.

On July 11, 2005, petitioner filed his petition. On October

18, 2006, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and to
- 4 -

2 Except in limited circumstances not relevant here, Rule 54

generally requires motions to be separately stated and not joined

together; we have permitted this joined motion to be filed in the

interests of judicial administration. See Stewart v.

Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 111 n.2 (2006). The Court has

proposed amending Rule 54 to clarify that motions should not be

joined together “Unless otherwise permitted by the Court”. Press

Release dated Jan. 16, 2007, p. 22.

impose a penalty under section 6673.2 On November 14, 2006,

petitioner filed a response, raising frivolous and groundless

arguments. 

Discussion

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and

avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be

granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and a

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

(b); see Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520

(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988). The moving party bears

the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material

fact; factual inferences will be read in a manner most favorable

to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner,

79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). When a motion for summary judgment is

made and properly supported, the adverse party may not rest upon

mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must set forth
- 5 -

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. 

Rule 121(d).

Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States on

all property and property rights of a person who is liable for

and fails to pay taxes after demand for payment has been made. 

The lien arises when assessment is made and continues until the

assessed liability is paid. Sec. 6322. For the lien to be valid

against certain third parties, the Secretary must file a notice

of Federal tax lien; within 5 business days thereafter, the

Secretary must provide written notice to the taxpayer. Secs.

6320(a), 6323(a). The taxpayer may request an administrative

hearing before an Appeals officer. Sec. 6320(b)(1). Once the

Appeals officer issues a determination, the taxpayer may seek

judicial review in the Tax Court or a District Court, as

appropriate. Secs. 6320(c), 6330(d)(1). 

Section 6330(c)(2) prescribes the matters that a person may

raise at an Appeals Office hearing, including spousal defenses,

challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended

collection action, and possible alternative means of collection. 

The existence or amount of the underlying tax liability may be

contested at an Appeals Office hearing only if the taxpayer did

not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an

opportunity to dispute that tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B);
- 6 -

3 In making this argument, petitioner appears to rely on

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C.

secs. 3501-3520 (2000). 

see Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000).

If the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly

at issue, we review that issue de novo. See Sego v.

Commissioner, supra at 609-610. Other issues we review for abuse

of discretion. Id. 

Because petitioner received notices of deficiency but failed

to petition this Court to redetermine the deficiencies,

petitioner is not entitled in this collection proceeding to

challenge his underlying liabilities for 2000 and 2001. See sec.

6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v.

Commissioner, supra at 182-183. Accordingly, we review

respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion. See Sego

v. Commissioner, supra at 610. 

In his response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment,

petitioner’s primary argument appears to be that the notices of

deficiency, as well as numerous other documents, including

respondent’s pleadings in this case, respondent’s tax return

forms, and correspondence that respondent sent to him, are

invalid because they lack valid Office of Management and Budget 

numbers.3 Petitioner’s argument is without merit. See, e.g.,

United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191 (10th Cir. 1991);
- 7 -

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 208 n.12 (2006). 

Petitioner assigns as error respondent’s failure to provide

him various documents requested in his Form 12153 and

correspondence. Petitioner’s contention is without merit. There

is no right to discovery in the Appeals hearing, which is

informal. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337 (2000). 

The Appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in declining to

provide the requested materials to petitioner. See Roberts v.

Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 372 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th

Cir. 2003). 

Petitioner suggests that respondent did not properly assess

his taxes for 2000 and 2001 because he did not receive requested

copies of Form 23C, Certificate of Assessment, or some other

summary record of assessment as required by section 6203 and

section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. We reject

petitioner’s argument. Respondent was not required to use Form

23C in making the assessment. Roberts v. Commissioner, supra at

371. The Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, &

Other Specified Matters, which are in the record provide

presumptive evidence that respondent has validly assessed

petitioner’s 2000 and 2001 liabilities. Id. n.10. Furthermore,

on August 4, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of

tax lien, the last page of which set forth, among other things,
- 8 -

petitioner’s name, the date of assessment, the character of the

liability assessed (“Form 1040”), the taxable periods, and the

amounts assessed. This information satisfied the requirements of

section 6203 and section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. See

Balice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-161 n.6. 

Petitioner complains that he was not given a face-to-face

hearing. Petitioner’s complaint is without merit. A face-toface hearing is not invariably required by section 6330; the

hearing may be conducted by correspondence or telephone. See

Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000); Summers v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-219. Petitioner was offered a

face-to-face hearing to consider legitimate issues. Petitioner

chose to pursue only frivolous and groundless arguments as

asserted in his Form 12153 and in correspondence with the Appeals

officer. In these circumstances, the Appeals officer did not

abuse her discretion in determining that a face-to-face hearing

would not be productive to consider petitioner’s arguments. See,

e.g., Summers v. Commissioner, supra. Moreover, in this

proceeding, petitioner has raised no legitimate issue that would

suggest that it would be productive or appropriate to remand this

case to the Office of Appeals for further proceedings. See

Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001).

Petitioner has made various other arguments and requests

that the Court finds frivolous or groundless. We conclude that
- 9 -

there are no genuine issues of material fact and that respondent

is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. On the basis

of our review of the record, we find that respondent did not

abuse his discretion in sustaining the tax lien. 

Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty no greater than

$25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted

or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the

taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or

groundless. Although we do not impose a section 6673 penalty on

petitioner today, we strongly warn him that if he advances

similar frivolous arguments in this Court in the future, we may

impose on him a section 6673 penalty up to the $25,000 maximum

allowable amount, even upon our own motion. 

To reflect the foregoing, 

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.