                          T.C. Memo. 2007-263



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              LESTER RONALD COLEMAN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1621-06L.                Filed August 30, 2007.



     Lester Ronald Coleman, pro se.

     Robert W. Dillard, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WELLS, Judge:   Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to sections

6320 and 6330, of respondent’s determination to proceed with the

collection of petitioner’s income tax liabilities for taxable

years 1994 and 1995.1    The issue to be decided is whether


     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
                                                   (continued...)
                                 - 2 -

respondent’s Appeals Office abused its discretion in determining

to proceed with collection of petitioner’s tax liabilities for

taxable years 1994 and 1995.

                               Background

     None of the facts were stipulated.     At the time of filing

the petition in the instant case, petitioner resided in Orlando,

Florida.

     Petitioner failed to file timely income tax returns for

taxable years 1994 and 1995.    On March 11, 2002, petitioner filed

late his income tax returns for the taxable years 1994 and 1995.

     On February 25, 2000, respondent sent petitioner the Notices

of Deficiency for taxable years 1994 and 1995.     On May 16, 2003,

respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and

Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (Levy Notice).     Petitioner

received the Levy Notice but did not request a hearing.

     Subsequently, respondent and petitioner met for an audit

reconsideration of petitioner’s taxable years 1994 and 1995.      On

October 4, 2004, petitioner signed Form 4549, Income Tax

Examination Changes (Form 4549), consenting to the immediate

assessment and collection of tax liabilities for 1994 and 1995.

     On February 2, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a

notice of Federal tax lien (lien notice) for the taxable years


     1
      (...continued)
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
                                 - 3 -

1994 and 1995.   On the basis of the lien notice, petitioner

timely sent respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due

Process Hearing.   At the hearing, petitioner disputed only his

tax liabilities for the taxable years 1994 and 1995.     Petitioner

did not offer any collection alternatives at the hearing.

     On December 16, 2005, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under section 6320

and/or 6330.   Petitioner timely petitioned the Court.

                               Discussion

     Section 6320(a)(1) requires the Secretary to give persons

liable to pay taxes written notice of the filing of a tax lien.

Section 6320(a)(3)(B) and (b)(1) provides that the notice shall

inform such persons of the right to request a hearing in

respondent’s Appeals Office.

     Section 6320(c) provides that an Appeals Office hearing

generally should be conducted consistently with the procedures

set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e).   The Appeals officer

must verify at the hearing that the applicable laws and

administrative procedures have been followed.   Sec. 6330(c)(1).

At the hearing, the person against whom the lien or levy is made

may raise any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or lien,

including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the

appropriateness of collection actions, and collection
                                - 4 -

alternatives.   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).     The person may challenge the

existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, however,

only if the person did not receive any statutory notice of

deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an

opportunity to dispute such tax liability.     Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

For purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B), a person who has waived

his or her right to challenge the proposed assessments is deemed

to have had the opportunity to dispute tax liabilities and is

thereby precluded from challenging those tax liabilities in the

hearing or before this Court.    Aguirre v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.

324, 327 (2001).

     In the instant case, by signing Form 4549, petitioner waived

his right to raise the issue of his underlying tax liabilities in

Tax Court.   Id.   Form 4549 states:

     Consent to Assessment and Collection-I do not wish to
     exercise my appeal rights with the Internal Revenue
     Service or to contest in the United States Tax Court
     the findings in this report. Therefore, I give my
     consent to the immediate assessment and collection of
     any increase in tax and penalties, and accept any
     decrease in tax and penalties as shown above, plus
     additional interest as provided by law.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner may not raise the underlying

tax liabilities in the instant case.2




     2
       Respondent also contends that petitioner is not entitled
to raise the underlying tax liabilities because petitioner failed
to request a hearing on the Levy Notice. We need not address
this issue.
                               - 5 -

     Assuming arguendo that petitioner is entitled to raise the

underlying tax liabilities in the instant case, petitioner’s only

contention with respect to the underlying tax liabilities is that

Form 4549 shows that he is due a refund.   In response to

petitioner’s argument, respondent contends that the amounts shown

on the Form 4549 were actually an abatement of previously

assessed tax liabilities for taxable years 1994 and 1995 and that

the underlying tax liabilities properly reflect the abatement.

We agree with respondent.

     Petitioner has misinterpreted the Form 4549, which clearly

shows that petitioner was given an abatement of his taxes for

taxable years 1994 and 1995.   The transcripts of account in the

record show that the abated amounts were credited against the

assessments and that respondent does not seek to collect those

amounts in the instant action.3

     Petitioner did not raise any issues relating to appropriate

spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection

actions, or collection alternatives at the hearing or in his

petition.   Accordingly, we hold that the decision of respondent’s




     3
       Petitioner also contends that he did not receive the
notices of deficiency. The record contains a certificate of
mailing of the notices of deficiency to petitioner on Feb. 25,
2000. Because petitioner signed Form 4549, we need not address
the issue of whether he received the notices of deficiency.
                                 - 6 -

Appeals Office to sustain the proposed lien against petitioner

was not an abuse of discretion and respondent may proceed with

collection.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be

                                         entered for respondent.
