                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-33



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               BRIAN JOSEPH TALASKE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 17882-09S.             Filed March 17, 2011.



     Brian Joseph Talaske, pro se.

     Kevin R. Erskine, for respondent.



     ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of sections 6330(d)(1) and 7463(f)(2).1    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
        All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
as amended.
                               - 2 -

     Brian Joseph Talaske (petitioner) filed a petition with this

Court in response to a Notice Of Determination Concerning

Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining a

proposed levy for 2005.   The issue for decision is whether

petitioner may challenge the existence or amount of the

underlying tax liability for that year.

                            Background

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

found.   Petitioner resided in the State of Michigan at the time

that the petition was filed with the Court.

     In March 2002, petitioner obtained a First USA VISA (First

USA) credit card.   Petitioner transferred to this new account

balances from credit cards issued by other financial

institutions.

     In September 2002, petitioner defaulted on his First USA

account.

     As of March 31, 2003, petitioner’s outstanding balance on

his First USA account was $23,119.99, consisting of principal of

$20,291.22 and finance charges of $2,828.77.   On that date, First

USA “charged off” principal of $20,291.22 and finance charges of

$2,828.77, thereby resulting in a “new balance” of zero.2



     2
        The record suggests that after Mar. 31, 2003, some
attempt at collection may have been made by either First USA or a
third-party agency; however, the record is clear that nothing was
collected.
                               - 3 -

     In or about 2004, First USA was acquired by JPMorgan Chase

(Chase).

     For tax year 2005, Chase issued to petitioner a Form 1099-C,

Cancellation of Debt, showing cancellation of indebtedness on

December 31, 2005, of $20,291.22.   The account number listed on

the form matches the number of petitioner’s credit card account

with First USA.

     Petitioner does not recall receiving any Form 1099-C from

Chase in 2006, and his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, for tax year 2005, which was prepared and timely filed in

2006, did not report any income from cancellation of

indebtedness.3

     In or about May 2007, respondent commenced an examination of

petitioner’s 2005 return.   Petitioner was aware of, and

participated in, the examination.

     By notice dated March 24, 2008, respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s 2005 income tax of $4,366.   The

deficiency was attributable principally to respondent’s

determination that petitioner failed to report cancellation of

indebtedness of $20,291 as reported by Chase on the

aforementioned Form 1099-C.




     3
        Petitioner’s prior Federal income tax returns, and
specifically petitioner’s Federal income tax return for 2003, did
not report cancellation of indebtedness of $20,291.22.
                               - 4 -

     The March 24, 2008 notice of deficiency was mailed to

petitioner at his last known address and was received by him no

later than March 30, 2008.   Notwithstanding the language in the

notice of deficiency about filing a petition with the Tax Court

“[i]f you want to contest this determination in court before

making any payment,” petitioner did not do so.   Rather, by letter

dated March 30, 2008, petitioner wrote to respondent’s

Holtsville, New York service center, the office that had issued

the deficiency notice, stating (inter alia) that “I continue to

object” and “I will petition the tax court as required if the IRS

fails to recognize the errors of the IRS claims”.

     Petitioner having failed to file a petition for

redetermination, respondent assessed the determined deficiency,

together with statutory interest, on August 11, 2008, see secs.

6213(c), 6601(a), and made notice and demand for payment pursuant

to section 6303(a).   Petitioner did not satisfy the outstanding

liability.

     On December 1, 2008, respondent sent petitioner a Final

Notice of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A Hearing in

respect of the outstanding liability.   Petitioner responded by

filing a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or

Equivalent Hearing.

     In a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)

Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated June 19, 2009, respondent’s
                              - 5 -

Appeals Office sustained the proposed levy.   The attachment to

the notice of determination included the following statements:

                  Issues raised by the taxpayer

     Collection Alternatives Offered by Taxpayer
     You offered no alternatives to collection. You stated
     [sic] will not agree to an installment agreement.

     Challenges to the Existence or Amount of Liability
     You disagree with your liability because you stated you
     never had an account with Chase Bank and you have never
     had a credit card from Chase Bank and that Form 982
     [Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of
     Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment)] would
     qualify you for insolvency for tax year 2003.

     Regarding petitioner’s desire to challenge the existence or

amount of the underlying liability, the attachment stated that

“you had prior opportunity to dispute the additional taxes”; in

that regard, the settlement officer’s case activity record

indicates that petitioner had previously been informed that he

“can not dispute tax liability thru CDP [the so-called collection

due process procedures] if * * * [he] had prior opportunity to

dispute the liability.”

     In response to the June 19, 2009 notice of determination,

petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court.   In the

petition, petitioner challenged the existence or amount of the

underlying liability.

     During the course of these proceedings, including at trial,

petitioner has focused solely on the existence or amount of the

underlying liability.
                                - 6 -

                              Discussion

A.   General Principles

      If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to

pay such tax within 10 days after notice and demand for payment,

then the Commissioner is authorized to collect such tax by levy

upon the person’s property.    Sec. 6331(a).   At least 30 days

before enforcing collection by way of a levy on the person’s

property, the Commissioner is obliged to provide the person with

a final notice of intent to levy, including notice of the

administrative appeals available to the person.     Sec. 6331(d).

      Generally speaking, the Commissioner cannot proceed with

collection by levy until the person has been given notice and the

opportunity for an administrative review of the matter (in the

form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with

judicial review of the administrative determination.     Sec. 6330;

see Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).

      If an administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to

be conducted by respondent’s Appeals Office, and, at the hearing,

the Appeals officer conducting it must verify that the

requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure

have been met.   Sec. 6330(b)(1), (c)(1).   Section 6330(c)

prescribes the matters that a taxpayer may raise at such hearing.

Section 6330(c)(2)(A) provides that a taxpayer may raise any
                                 - 7 -

relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or proposed levy,

including spousal defenses and collection alternatives.

Additionally, the taxpayer may challenge the existence or amount

of the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive a

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).

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeals officer must

determine whether and how to proceed with collection, taking into

account, inter alia, collection alternatives proposed by the

taxpayer and whether any proposed collection action balances the

need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate

concern of the taxpayer that the collection action be no more

intrusive than necessary.     See sec. 6330(c)(3).

      Section 6330(d)(1) provides that a taxpayer may, within 30

days of the issuance of a notice of determination, appeal the

determination of the Appeals Office to the Tax Court, and this

Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter.

B.   The Parties’ Positions

      Petitioner contends on various grounds that he never

received income in 2005 in the form of cancellation of
                               - 8 -

indebtedness; therefore, in petitioner’s view, respondent’s March

24, 2008 deficiency determination was erroneous.4

      Respondent invokes section 6330(c)(2)(B) and contends that

petitioner is barred from challenging respondent’s March 24, 2008

deficiency determination in the present collection review

proceeding because petitioner had a prior opportunity to do so in

the form of an action for redetermination of deficiency.

C.   Analysis

      As previously stated, a taxpayer may challenge the existence

or amount of the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not

receive a notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not


      4
        Petitioner argues that he never had any account with
Chase so that the Form 1099-C issued by that financial
institution was of no import. However, the record demonstrates
that petitioner had an account with First USA and that Chase was
the successor in interest to such account.
     Petitioner also argues that his credit card debt with First
USA was canceled in 2002 when he defaulted. However, a debtor’s
default is not equivalent to forgiveness of the debt by the
debtor’s creditor.
     Petitioner argues further that his credit card debt was
canceled in 2003 when it was “charged off” by First USA.
However, this argument does not address the suggestion in the
record that some effort at collection was made after Mar. 31,
2003, by First USA or a third-party agency; the argument also
assumes that the “charge off” of a debt is equivalent to
cancellation of indebtedness for purposes of sec. 61(a)(12) and
does not account for the fact that Chase (successor-in-interest
to First USA) did not cancel the indebtedness until 2005.
     Finally, petitioner argues that regardless of when his
credit card debt with First USA may have been canceled, he was
insolvent at the time, which, in petitioner’s view, justifies his
failure to report the $20,291.22 amount on any return. In this
regard, the record does strongly hint of petitioner’s financial
frailty; however, petitioner’s insolvency at any particular point
in time was never proven.
                                - 9 -

otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.

Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).    Stated otherwise, a taxpayer may not

challenge the underlying liability in an administrative hearing,

and therefore this Court may not review that liability in a

subsequent collection review proceeding such as the instant one,

if the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency or otherwise had

a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying liability.       Id.;

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

     Here the record is clear that respondent mailed a notice of

deficiency for 2005 to petitioner and that petitioner actually

received such notice within a few days after its mailing.

Petitioner therefore had the opportunity to file a petition for

redetermination with this Court and dispute the determined

deficiency.    He failed to do so.   Thus, as a matter of law,

petitioner is barred in the present collection review proceeding

from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying

liability that respondent seeks to collect.5    We therefore

sustain respondent’s determination that collection may proceed by

way of levy.




     5
        Whether petitioner might be able to do so in a refund
action in a U.S. District Court or in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims, see sec. 7422; McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138,
142 n.5 (1970), is a matter that we need not (and do not)
address, as the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over that type of
action, cf. Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006).
                              - 10 -

                            Conclusion

     We have considered all of the arguments made by petitioner,

and, to the extent that we have not specifically addressed any of

them, we conclude that they are irrelevant or without merit.

     To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                   for respondent.
