1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-22

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DEIRDRE G. MCNAMARA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 15050-03S. Filed February 24, 2005.

Deirdre G. McNamara, pro se.

Nancy C. Carver, for respondent.

PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463.1 The

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination

Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
- 2 -

(notice of determination) for unpaid Federal income tax and

related liabilities for 1995. The notice of determination

asserts that the unpaid balance is $2,872.79.

The issue for decision is whether respondent’s determination

to proceed with collection action was an abuse of discretion.

Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found. Petitioner resided in New York, New York, at the time the

petition was filed.

Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for the taxable

year 1995 on June 17, 1996. The return was examined by

respondent. On May 11, 1998, a notice of deficiency was issued

determining a deficiency in the amount of $2,200 for the taxable

year 1995. A timely petition was filed with this Court (docket

No. 13739-98S) and on March 18, 1999, a decision was entered for

the taxable year 1995 in the amount of $2,200. The decision was

entered pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The

stipulated decision was executed by petitioner and counsel for

respondent. After the decision was entered, petitioner submitted

a check to respondent in the amount of $2,816.47. The check was

not honored by the bank due to insufficient funds.

On January 26, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a final

notice of intent to levy and right to a collection due process

hearing. Petitioner timely filed with respondent a Form 12153,
- 3 -

Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. As a basis for her

disagreement with respondent’s proposed collection action

petitioner asserts, among other things, that “govt. agencies

colluded in egregious civil & human rights abuses against me & my

family”. By letter dated November 27, 2001, the Appeals officer

invited petitioner to submit additional relevant information

relating to the issues that could be considered. In this

connection, a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement, was

provided to petitioner so that she could present collection

alternatives to respondent. Petitioner responded by letter dated

December 8, 2001. The letter does not contain any information or

assertions that could reasonably be considered as an appropriate

challenge to respondent’s collection action. As a result, on

February 11, 2002, respondent issued a notice of determination,

wherein he concluded that respondent could proceed with the

proposed collection action.

Discussion

This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s

administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d). 

Petitioner received a notice of deficiency, and she timely filed

a petition with this Court. A decision was entered with respect

to the taxable year 1995 based on the agreement of the parties. 

Since the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at

issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego
- 4 -

v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,

114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000); Wooten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2003-113. In so doing, we do not conduct an independent review

of what would be an appropriate collection alternative. Van

Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-346. We review only

whether the Appeals officer’s determination was arbitrary,

capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral

v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).

Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to a hearing in

which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the

unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection

alternatives such as an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(b) and

(c)(2). In the present case, petitioner appears to contend that

respondent should not proceed with collection because of abuses

she and her family have suffered by various Government agencies. 

Petitioner does not otherwise present any argument that the

Appeals officer’s actions were an abuse of discretion. 

On the basis of the information considered by the Appeals

officer, we cannot conclude that the Appeals officer’s

determination to proceed with collection action was an abuse of

discretion. See Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-318; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290;

Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. Indeed, when the
- 5 -

Court asked petitioner to explain why she disagreed with

respondent’s proposed collection action, petitioner failed to

provide any meaningful explanation. We are satisfied that

respondent did not abuse his discretion in making his

determination. 

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

To give effect to the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

for respondent.