                     T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-62



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              CHARLENE DIANE NAVARRE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 30177-07S.               Filed May 4, 2009.



     Charlene Diane Navarre, pro se.

     Bryan E. Sladek, for respondent.


     PARIS, Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.    Pursuant to section

7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any

other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent

for any other case.


     1
      Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
                                - 2 -

     On December 18, 2007, respondent mailed to petitioner a

Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under

Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) for a tax

liability of petitioner for 2004.    In response to that notice,

and pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330(d), petitioner timely

petitioned this Court for review of respondent’s determination

sustaining a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL).

     The issue for decision is whether the Appeals Office abused

its discretion in upholding respondent’s filing of a NFTL.

                             Background

     On May 23, 2007, respondent recorded a notice of Federal

tax lien and levy for income tax due from petitioner for tax year

2004.2    Petitioner timely requested a collection due process

(CDP) hearing under section 6330(b) with respondent’s Appeals

Office.    As a result of the hearing, the Appeals Office

determined that the recording of the notice of Federal tax lien

was appropriate and that the lien should not be withdrawn.       It

was also determined that collection of the tax liability due by

levy was no longer necessary because a collection alternative,

reporting the account as currently not collectible, had been

reached.    No offer-in-compromise was agreed to or offered by




     2
      Petitioner’s residence will be affected if the filing of
the NFTL is sustained.
                                - 3 -

petitioner during the CDP hearing.      The Appeals Office’s

conclusions were memorialized in the notice of determination.

     On December 28, 2007, petitioner, then residing in the State

of Michigan, filed a petition with this Court requesting that the

Federal tax lien not be sustained.      On October 22, 2008, a trial

was held in Detroit, Michigan, to determine whether the Appeals

Office abused its discretion by determining that the notice of

Federal tax lien should be sustained.      Petitioner testified that

she had equity in her residence but contests sustaining the

Federal tax lien because the lien makes her “feel” as if she does

not “own [her] house anymore.”3   Tr. at 28.

                            Discussion

     Under section 6321, if a person liable for a tax fails to

pay it after demand, the unpaid amount, including any interest

and civil penalties, becomes a lien in favor of the United States

“upon all property and rights to property, whether real or

personal, belonging to such person.”      The lien arises when the

tax is assessed.   Sec. 6322.   Section 6323 explains that the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may file a notice of Federal tax

lien to protect its lien against subsequent creditors and

purchasers of the taxpayer’s property.



     3
      At trial, the Court tried several times, unsuccessfully, to
evoke from petitioner an argument or legal basis why the tax lien
should not be sustained. This was the most cogent response the
Court received.
                               - 4 -

     A taxpayer may appeal the filing of a notice of tax lien to

the IRS under section 6320 by requesting an administrative

hearing to review the notice of Federal tax lien.    The taxpayer

is additionally afforded the opportunity for judicial review of a

determination sustaining the notice of Federal tax lien in the

U.S. Tax Court pursuant to section 6330(d).   Petitioner has

chosen to seek judicial review of respondent’s determination.

     Petitioner concedes her underlying tax liability; thus, the

Court reviews the determination to see whether there has been an

abuse of discretion by respondent’s Appeals Office in the

determination.   See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185

(2001) (citing Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117 (2001)).

The Court has described the standard by which respondent’s

determinations in CDP cases are reviewed as an “abuse of

discretion,” meaning “arbitrary, capricious, clearly unlawful, or

without sound basis in fact or law.”   Ewing v. Commissioner, 122

T.C. 32, 39 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th

Cir. 2006); see also Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23

(1999).   Utilizing this standard, this Court does not find that

respondent’s Appeals Office abused its discretion.   Respondent

simply used the available methods under the Internal Revenue Code

for protecting the United States’ claims against subsequent

creditors.
                                 - 5 -

Conclusion

     Based on the record, the Court holds that the Appeals Office

did not abuse its discretion in determining that respondent’s

filing of a NFTL with respect to petitioner’s residence was an

appropriate collection action.

     Finally, in reaching the conclusions described herein, the

Court has considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not

mentioned above, finds them to be moot, irrelevant, or without

merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
