                         T.C. Memo. 2004-255



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                MICHAEL E. VIEROW, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 19406-03L.               Filed November 8, 2004.


     Michael E. Vierow, pro se.

     Rebecca Duewer-Grenville, for respondent.



               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner

seeks review of respondent’s determination to proceed with

collection of his 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 tax

liabilities.


     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                              - 2 -

                        FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   At the time he filed the

petition, petitioner resided in Crescent City, California.

     In 2000, respondent and petitioner exchanged correspondence

regarding petitioner’s failure to file income tax returns and his

obligation to pay income tax and file income tax returns.

     On February, 23, 2001, respondent sent petitioner, via

certified mail to the address where petitioner resided, a notice

of deficiency for 1994, 1995, and 1996 and a notice of deficiency

for 1997 and 1998.

     On August 13, 2001, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax

liabilities for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.   That same day,

respondent sent petitioner statutory notices of balance due for

1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

     On September 17, 2001, respondent sent petitioner notices of

balance due for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

     On October 22, 2001, respondent sent petitioner statutory

notices of intent to levy for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

     On September 19, 2002, respondent sent petitioner via

certified mail a Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and

Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (hearing notice).
                               - 3 -

     On October 18, 2002, petitioner filed a Form 12153, Request

for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding his 1994, 1995,

1996, 1997, and 1998 tax years (hearing request).    Petitioner

attached the hearing notice and a 12-page letter to the hearing

request.   Petitioner argued that respondent failed to follow the

requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure.

     On February 24, 2003, respondent’s San Francisco Appeals

Office sent petitioner a letter stating that it had received his

hearing request and explaining the hearing process.

     On May 7, 2003, Appeals Officer James Chambers sent

petitioner a letter requesting that petitioner contact him to

schedule a section 6330 hearing (hearing).    Appeals Officer

Chambers advised petitioner that the hearing could be held in

person, by telephone, or by correspondence.

     On May 19, 2003, petitioner sent Appeals Officer Chambers a

letter requesting an in-person hearing closer to his home than

San Francisco, California.   Petitioner suggested that the hearing

be held at respondent’s office in Eureka, California.2

     On June 16, 2003, Appeals Officer Chambers sent petitioner a

letter stating that the San Francisco Appeals Office was the

closest option for an in-person hearing.     Appeals Officer

Chambers again offered petitioner the option of a telephone



     2
        From the record, it is unclear whether respondent had an
Appeals Office in Eureka, California.
                               - 4 -

hearing or to continue his hearing by correspondence.   Petitioner

chose to have his hearing conducted via correspondence.

     As part of the hearing, Appeals Officer Chambers reviewed

the administrative file, which included the notices of deficiency

and Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other

Specified Matters.   Appeals Officer Chambers also reviewed a

certified mail list, which was not part of the administrative

file, to determine whether respondent mailed the notices of

deficiency via certified mail to petitioner at his correct

address.

     On July 28, 2003, petitioner sent Appeals Officer Chambers a

letter in which he argued that in order to meet the verification

requirement of section 6330(c)(1) respondent needed to establish

that respondent properly (1) issued statutory notices of

deficiency for the years in issue, (2) made the assessments for

the years in issue, (3) issued notices and demand for payment,

(4) issued notice of intent to levy, and (5) issued notice of

petitioner’s right to a hearing.   Petitioner also claimed he had

not received any “assessment notices” from respondent for the

years in issue.

     On October 8, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 (notice of determination) for the years in issue.

Appeals Officer Chambers determined that the requirements of
                                - 5 -

applicable law and administrative procedure had been met and that

collection could proceed.

                               OPINION

     Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at

the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the

Commissioner’s collection activities, including spousal defenses,

challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended

collection action, and alternative means of collection.    Sego v.

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

T.C. 176, 180 (2000).    When the Commissioner issues a

determination regarding a disputed collection action, section

6330(d) permits a taxpayer to seek judicial review with the Tax

Court or a U.S. District Court, as is appropriate.    Petitioner

did not challenge the underlying tax liability.    Accordingly, we

review respondent’s determination for an abuse of discretion.

Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.

1.   Evidentiary Issue

     At trial, petitioner objected to the introduction of the

certified mail list, which was not part of the administrative

file.   We overruled petitioner’s objection.   On brief, petitioner

argues that in section 6330 cases the Court is subject to the

provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and limited to

reviewing the administrative record, and it was an error to

conduct a trial de novo.
                              - 6 -

     This case was tried before our Opinion in Robinette v.

Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85 (2004).   In Robinette, we held that

when reviewing the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to

section 6330, our review is not limited by the Administrative

Procedure Act, the evidence we may consider is not limited to the

administrative record, and we conduct trials de novo.    See also

Holliday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-67 (Commissioner

permitted to present documents, records, and testimony at trial

that were not part of administrative record), affd. 57 Fed. Appx.

774 (9th Cir. 2003).

2.   Procedural Issue--Location of the Hearing

     Petitioner argues that he was entitled to a hearing at the

Appeals Office closest to his home and the San Francisco Appeals

Office was not the closest Appeals Office to his home.   If a

taxpayer receives a notice of lien or intent to levy and requests

a hearing at the Commissioner’s Appeals Office, the taxpayer must

be offered an opportunity for a hearing at the Appeals Office

closest to the taxpayer’s residence.   Parker v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2004-226; see Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 335-

336 (2000); sec. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

     Assuming arguendo that there was an Appeals Office closer to

petitioner’s home than San Francisco, California, we do not think

it is necessary or productive to remand this case to Appeals.

See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Kemper v.
                               - 7 -

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.     Petitioner’s arguments--in

the hearing request, during the correspondence hearing, and at

trial--were limited to the verification requirement in section

6330(c)(1).   Petitioner’s presence was not required in order for

respondent to verify whether the requirements of any applicable

law or administrative procedure had been met.

3.   Abuse of Discretion

     As noted supra, petitioner’s arguments regard the

verification requirement in section 6330(c)(1).    Petitioner

contends that Appeals Officer Chambers did not verify that

respondent (1) properly assessed the taxes for the years in issue

and (2) issued petitioner notices of deficiency, notice and

demand for payment, notice of intent to levy, and notice of his

right to a hearing.

     Section 6330(c)(1) does not require the Commissioner to rely

on a particular document to satisfy the verification requirement

imposed therein.   E.g., Schnitzler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2002-159.   We have repeatedly held that the Commissioner may rely

on Forms 4340 or transcripts of account to satisfy the

verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1).     Lindsey v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87, affd. 56 Fed. Appx. 802 (9th

Cir. 2003); Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86, affd. 70

Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003).   Petitioner has not alleged any

irregularity in the assessment procedure that would raise a
                               - 8 -

question about the validity of the assessments or the information

contained in the Forms 4340.   See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.

35, 41 (2000); Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48.

     Petitioner’s testimony, the notices of deficiency, the

certified mail receipts, and the certified mail list establish

that respondent mailed the notices of deficiency via certified

mail to petitioner at his correct address.    The Forms 4340

establish a proper assessment and that respondent sent petitioner

notice and demand for payment and notice of intent to levy.    A

certified mail return receipt for the hearing notice and the fact

that petitioner attached the hearing notice to his hearing

request establish that petitioner received the hearing notice.

Accordingly, we hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the

verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1).    Cf. Nicklaus v.

Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).

     Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a

valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended

collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.

These issues are now deemed conceded.   See Rule 331(b)(4).
                                 - 9 -

     In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered

all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not

mentioned above, we conclude they are irrelevant or without

merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
