                         T.C. Memo. 2005-158



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              DEBORAH CARMAN GOODIN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 8218-04L.             Filed June 28, 2005.



     Deborah Carman Goodin, pro se.

     J. Craig Young, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case is before the Court on respon-

dent’s motion for summary judgment (respondent’s motion for

summary judgment) and respondent’s motion for a penalty under

section 66731 (respondent’s motion for a penalty).   (We shall


     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
                                                   (continued...)
                              - 2 -

refer collectively to respondent’s motion for summary judgment

and respondent’s motion for a penalty as respondent’s motions.)

We shall grant respondent’s motions.

                           Background

     The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the

following.

     Petitioner resided in Garner, North Carolina, at the time

she filed the petition in this case.

     On February 11, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a

notice of deficiency (notice of deficiency) with respect to her

taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.    In that notice of defi-

ciency, respondent determined a deficiency in, and additions to,

petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax), as follows:

                                 Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency      Sec. 6651(f)   Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654(a)
                                           *
1997      $14,644       $10,471                         $771
                                           *
1998        5,842         4,162                          262
                                           *
1999        6,759         4,801                          319
     *
       In the notice of deficiency, respondent stated:

     The amount of the addition to tax cannot be determined
     at this time, and an addition to tax of 0.5 percent
     will be imposed for each additional month, or fraction
     thereof, of nonpayment, up to 22.5 percent as provided
     by section 6651(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code for
     the taxable years ended December 31, 1997; December 31,
     1998; and December 31, 1999.

     Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with


     1
      (...continued)
(Code) in effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -

respect to the notice of deficiency relating to her taxable years

1997, 1998, and 1999.

     On July 8, 2002, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax, as

well as additions to tax and interest as provided by law, for

each of her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.   (We shall refer

to those unpaid assessed amounts, as well as interest as provided

by law accrued after July 8, 2002, as petitioner’s unpaid liabil-

ities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.)

     Respondent issued to petitioner the notice and demand for

payment as required by section 6303(a) with respect to peti-

tioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.

     On March 24, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing (notice of

tax lien) with respect to petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for

1997, 1998, and 1999.

     On or about April 6, 2003, in response to the notice of tax

lien, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due

Process Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a hearing with

respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals Office).   The following is

the only explanation that petitioner provided in her Form 12153

for her disagreement with respondent’s proposed collection

action:   “Mathmaticly [sic] incorrect”.

     On a date not disclosed by the record, a settlement officer

with the Appeals Office (settlement officer) held a telephonic
                               - 4 -

Appeals Office hearing with petitioner with respect to the notice

of tax lien.   In connection with the telephonic Appeals Office

hearing, the settlement officer relied on transcripts of peti-

tioner’s accounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable years

1997, 1998, and 1999.

     On a date not disclosed by the record, respondent sent to

petitioner by facsimile (respondent’s facsimile) pertinent

sections of the Code, the income tax regulations, and various

court cases which establish that petitioner is obligated to pay

tax, as well as any additions to tax and interest as provided by

law, for each of her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

     On March 10, 2004, in response to respondent’s facsimile,

petitioner sent to respondent by facsimile a letter (petitioner’s

March 10, 2004 letter) that stated in pertinent part:

     I specified on form 12153 that the notice of * * * lien
     were Mathematically incorrect. And my question to you
     was; Where is the statute and implementing regulation
     that makes me liable for the penalty or tax? * * * I
     have a copy of the IRC and the part of the Index, in
     the front under the subject of “Liability for tax”
     doesn’t even mention Subtitles A through C income
     taxes. I have been looking at the laws and IRC Statues
     and Regulations and they show I’m not liable, but
     absolutely none that show that I am. I am not refusing
     to pay I will gladly pay as you are requesting if you
     would please show me the law that says I have “gross
     income” form a taxable “situs” under 26 CFR § 1.861-
     8(f) that is legally considered as “taxable income”.
     Please just show me the amount of tax I owe in a way
     that is consistent with Section 861 of the IRC and the
     implementing regulation and statute. [Reproduced liter-
     ally.]

     On April 16, 2004, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a
                              - 5 -

notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under

section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination).   A document

that was attached to and incorporated in that notice of determi-

nation stated in pertinent part:

                     SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

     The taxpayer submitted a timely request for a Collec-
     tion Due Process Hearing in response to the notice of
     lien filing.

     The taxpayer’s request for a Due Process Hearing stated
     “Mathmaticaly incorrect” Since she received a statutory
     notice of deficiency, she was told that she could not
     dispute the liability under collection due process, and
     the audit reconsideration process was explained to her.
     Publication 3598 was also sent to her. In her phone
     conference, the taxpayer stated that she would pay the
     tax if we could show her that she was liable for the
     tax. Appeals faxed her code, regulations and court
     cases, but her response by letter dated 3/10/2004
     states “I have a copy of the IRC and the part of the
     Index, in the front under the subject of ‘Liability for
     Tax’ doesn’t even mention Subtitles A through C income
     taxes. I have been looking for the laws and IRC Stat-
     utes and Regulations and they show I am not liable, but
     absolutely none of them show that I am. I am not
     refusing to pay as you are requesting if you would
     please show me that the law says I have ‘gross income’
     form a taxable ‘situs’ under 26 CFR section 1.861-8(f)
     that is legally considered as ‘taxable’ income.” These
     arguments are frivolous and need not be addressed
     further, as the information she requested has been
     provided to her. The taxpayer has not provided any
     documentation or collection alternatives.

          Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures

     With the best information available, the requirements
     of various applicable law or administrative procedures
     have been met.

     IRC § 6321 creates a lien on the taxpayer’s property if
     the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay the tax after
     the tax is assessed and after notice and demand for
                         - 6 -

payment, at his last known address, as provided for in
IRC § 6303. Review of transcripts have confirmed the
tax was assessed 7/8/2002, and notice and demand was
mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address, and
there is still a balance due.

IRC section 6320(a) provides that the IRS will notify a
taxpayer of the filing of a NFTL and of the right to a
hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals with respect
to the filing of NFTL. Such notification was mailed to
you 3/24/2003.

   *       *       *       *       *       *       *

This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with
respect to these liabilities.

       Relevant Issues Presented by the Taxpayer

The request for a Collection Process Due Hearing filed
by the taxpayer stated “mathmaticaly incorrect.” The
taxpayer did not file a return, and does not believe
that she has “gross income” or owes the tax. A proper
assessment was made on 07/08/2002 after mailing the
Statutory Notice of Deficiency to the taxpayer’s last
know address on 2/11/2002. She has been given the
opportunity to dispute the assessment before it was
made. No alternative to the filing of the NFTL was
suggested.

  Balancing the Efficient Tax Collection with Concern
                Regarding Intrusiveness

Appeals has verified, or received verification, that
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met; has considered the issues raised, and has balanced
the proposed collection action with the legitimate
concerns that such action be no more intrusive than
necessary as required by IRC 6330(c)(3). The case will
be returned to compliance for any action they deem
appropriate.

The filing of the lien, in this case, properly balances
the need for efficient collection action with concerns
over the level of intrusiveness necessary to accomplish
collection of the liability. It is Appeals determina-
tion that Compliance properly followed all procedures
and properly filed the lien.
                          - 7 -

   *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                Summary of Determination

Appeals has verified, or received verification, that
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met, has considered the issues raised and has balanced
the proposed collection action with the legitimate
concerns that such action be no more intrusive than
necessary as required by Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
section 6320.

       •   Your request for a Collection Due Process
           (CDP) hearing was timely filed; accordingly,
           you were entitled to a CDP Hearing for the
           filing of the lien,
       •   We have held a Collection Due Process (CDP)
           hearing by phone with the Appeals officer,
           Kathryn A. Lester, your Power of Attorney,
           John Turner and you, Deborah C. Goodin,
       •   You stated that the liability was
           “Mathmaticaly incorrect,” that your wages and
           other income are not “gross income” and are
           not subject to tax,
       •   The service has issued a statutory notice of
           deficiency to you on 2/11/2002, which de-
           faulted since you did not petition the court
           by 5/12/2002,
       •   You cannot dispute the liability under col-
           lection due process since you have previously
           been given the opportunity to dispute the
           liability,
       •   The tax assessments were made on 7/8/2002,
       •   You have not raised any collection alterna-
           tives,
       •   Therefore, the proposed lien action balances
           the efficient collection of taxes with the
           taxpayer’s legitimate concern that the col-
           lection action be no more intrusive than
           necessary.

The Appeals Office sustains the filing of the lien.
The case will be returned to the Compliance Office for
appropriate collection actions. [Reproduced liter-
ally.]

Petitioner filed a petition with the Court with respect to
                              - 8 -

the notice of determination relating to petitioner’s unpaid

liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.   The attachment to the

petition (petitioner’s attachment to the petition) that we

consider to be part of the petition contained statements, conten-

tions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivo-

lous and/or groundless.2

     On or about November 11, 2004, after petitioner filed her

petition with the Court, petitioner sent to respondent a document

entitled “Notice Of Response In The Form Of an Affidavit Under 5

USC” (petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit).   Petitioner’s

November 11, 2004 affidavit contained statements, contentions,

arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous

and/or groundless.3

     In response to petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit,

respondent sent a letter to petitioner dated January 11, 2005



     2
      The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioner’s attachment to the peti-
tion are similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests in petitions filed by
certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g.,
Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-131; Copeland v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46.
     3
      Petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit contained state-
ments, contentions, arguments, and requests that are similar to
the types of statements, contentions, arguments, and requests
contained in the documents that certain other taxpayers with
cases in the Court have sent to the Internal Revenue Service.
See, e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner, supra; Smith v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
                              - 9 -

(respondent’s January 11, 2005 letter), which stated in pertinent

part:

          On November 12, 2004, our office received a docu-
     ment from you captioned “Notice of Response In the Form
     of An Affidavit Under 5 USC.” This document asserts
     frivolous arguments related to your liability for the
     unpaid taxes, and demands that our office answer ques-
     tions and produce documents pursuant to Tax Court Rules
     71 and 72. * * *

        *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Our office is prepared to discuss any relevant
     issues. However, we are under no obligation to discuss
     frivolous issues such as those raised by you in the
     Petition in this case. Furthermore, many of your
     arguments relate to whether you in fact owe the 1997,
     1998, and 1999 federal income taxes assessed against
     you by the IRS. On February 11, 2002, the IRS mailed a
     statutory notice of deficiency for these income taxes
     to your last known address. A complete copy of this
     notice of deficiency is enclosed. You in fact received
     this notice of deficiency. See “Notice of Response...”
     (wherein you state “I responded by letter to the Notice
     of Deficiency...”). Because you received a notice of
     deficiency for your 1997, 1998, and 1999 income taxes,
     you are prohibited from disputing either the existence
     and amounts of these tax liabilities in this proceed-
     ing. I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B).

        *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Under I.R.C. § 6673, the Court may award a penalty
     to the United States in an amount up to $25,000 when
     the proceeding has been instituted or maintained by a
     taxpayer primarily for delay, or if the taxpayer’s
     position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
     In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000),
     this Court issued an unequivocal warning to taxpayers
     concerning the imposition of damages under section 6673
     on those taxpayers who abuse the protections afforded
     by section 6320 and 6330. Furthermore, in later
     lien/levy cases, this Court has imposed section 6673
     damages against taxpayers who asserted frivolous argu-
     ments. See, e.g., Bradshear [sic] v. Commissioner,
     T.C. Memo. 2003-196. If you continue to assert frivo-
                             - 10 -

     lous arguments in this proceeding, our office will
     request the Tax Court to impose damages against you
     under section 6673.

     On March 11, 2005, respondent sent a letter to petitioner

(respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter), which stated in pertinent

part:

          Enclosed is a copy of a recent opinion, Kilgore v.
     Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-24 (filed February 15,
     2005). In Kilgore, the Tax Court granted respondent’s
     motion for summary judgment, and in doing so, rejected
     as frivolous many of the same arguments you have made
     in your case. The Tax Court also granted respondent’s
     motion for damages under section 6673, and ordered the
     petitioner in Kilgore to pay the United States a pen-
     alty of $10,000.

     In response to respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter, on a date

not disclosed by the record in March 2005, petitioner sent to

respondent another affidavit entitled “PETITION Private Redress

of Grievance in the Absence of Judicial Process In the form of An

Affidavit With Imperative Need for Response” (petitioner’s March

2005 affidavit), which stated in pertinent part:

          This is in response to your notice dated March
     11th, 2005. I have found talking with you to be very
     difficult. Affiant seeks a bill which Mr. Young and
     the Corporate United States, state Affiant owes.

          Send me a certified bill that the federal govern-
     ment says I owe which is verified per Black’s Law
     Dictionary and that you have personal knowledge con-
     cerning this debt.

          Affiant is sending this petition to avoid Judicial
     Process and objects to Motion for Summary Judgment.

          Do you not realize the hardship and duress you and
     your organization place on people. The tremendous debt
     already established and placed on Affiant through
                              - 11 -

     Internal Revenue Service, North Carolina Department of
     Revenue, fuel bills and other obligations just to name
     a few. Time is stolen from family and friends.

     On June 13, 2005, petitioner filed with the Court a motion

to dismiss, which the Court denied.    Petitioner’s motion to

dismiss contained statements, contentions, arguments, and re-

quests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.4

                            Discussion

     The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no

genuine issue of material fact 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 are no genuine issues of material fact

regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion for summary

judgment.

     Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with

respect to the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to her

relating to her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.    Where, as is

the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is

not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determi-

nation of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue for abuse of



     4
      The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioner’s motion to dismiss are
similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and requests in documents filed by certain
other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g., Fink v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-61; Smith v. Commissioner, supra.
                              - 12 -

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

v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).

     As was true of petitioner’s March 10, 2004 letter, peti-

tioner’s attachment to the petition, petitioner’s November 11,

2004 affidavit, petitioner’s March 2005 affidavit, and peti-

tioner’s motion to dismiss, petitioner’s position in petitioner’s

response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment (peti-

tioner’s response) and petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s

response is frivolous and/or groundless.5

     Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in

determining to proceed with the collection action as determined

in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner’s

unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.

     In respondent’s motion for a penalty, respondent requests

that the Court require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United

States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).   Section 6673(a)(1)

authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United

States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it

appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding before it was


     5
      The statements, contentions, arguments, and requests set
forth in petitioner’s response are similar to the statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by
certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for
summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See,
e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
                             - 13 -

instituted or maintained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A),

or that the taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous

or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).

     In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000), we issued

an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposition of

a penalty under section 6673(a) on those taxpayers who abuse the

protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by instituting or

maintaining actions under those sections primarily for delay or

by taking frivolous or groundless positions in such actions.   In

respondent’s January 11, 2005 letter, respondent advised peti-

tioner of the holding in Pierson v. Commissioner, supra, and

cautioned petitioner that if she continued to assert frivolous

arguments, respondent would request that the Court impose a

penalty on her under section 6673.    On March 31, 2005, the Court

issued an Order in which, inter alia, the Court reminded peti-

tioner about section 6673(a)(1) and indicated that if petitioner

continued to advance statements, contentions, arguments, and/or

requests that the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless,

the Court would be inclined to impose on petitioner a penalty not

in excess of $25,000 under section 6673(a)(1).

     Nonetheless, in the instant case, petitioner alleged in

petitioner’s attachment to the petition, argued in petitioner’s

motion to dismiss, and advances in petitioner’s response and

petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s response, we believe
                             - 14 -

primarily for delay, frivolous and/or groundless statements,

contentions, arguments, and requests, thereby causing the Court

to waste its limited resources.    We shall impose a penalty on

petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of

$7,000.

     We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, conten-

tions, arguments, and requests that are not discussed herein,

and, to the extent we have not found them to be frivolous and/or

groundless, we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

     On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s mo-

tions.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                      An order granting respondent’s

                                 motions and decision for respondent

                                 will be entered.
