                          T.C. Memo. 2010-277



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 SUSAN FAY MOSTAFA, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 30789-08L.                Filed December 15, 2010.



     Susan Fay Mostafa, pro se.

     Nhi T. Luu, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     MORRISON, Judge:     We sustain the determination of the IRS

Appeals Office, dated November 19, 2008, to proceed with a

proposed levy to collect from the petitioner her unpaid income

tax liability for 1996.    We have jurisdiction to review the

determination under section 6330(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986, as amended.
                                 - 2 -

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

       The petitioner, Susan Fay Mostafa, did not file a federal-

income-tax return for the year 1996.       The IRS issued her a

deficiency notice determining that she owed a deficiency in tax

for the year and that she owed an addition to tax for failing to

file a tax return.    Mostafa filed a Tax Court petition to

challenge the deficiency notice.     The Tax Court decided that she

owed a tax deficiency of $1,377 and that she was liable for a

failure-to-file addition to tax equal to 25 percent of the amount

required to be shown on the return ($1,377 x .25 = $344.25).        See

Mostafa v. Commissioner, Docket No. 12964-04, T.C. Memo. 2006-

106.

       On August 22, 2007, the IRS mailed Mostafa a notice that it

intended to levy to collect her tax liability for 1996.      On

September 11, 2007, Mostafa requested a hearing with the IRS

Appeals Office to challenge the proposed levy.      On the same day,

September 11, 2007, she wrote a check for $701 to the IRS.        On

the check she wrote the following:       “Endorsing this check accepts

1996 tax Return Paid in full”.    On September 19, 2007, the IRS

credited the amount of the check to Mostafa’s account for her

1996 income-tax liability.

       The IRS Appeals officer assigned to Mostafa’s pre-levy case

spoke to Mostafa by telephone on several occasions.      His notes of

one of the conversations reflect that Mostafa contended that her

1996 tax liability had been resolved by the cashing of the $701
                               - 3 -

check, but that the Appeals officer told her that such a

contention was outside the scope of the hearing:

     Tp wanted to bring up liability issue but I explained
     to her that the hearing is to setup a collection
     alternative, such as a OIC as that is the box she
     marked on form 12153. TP states she has been to tax
     court but disagrees with amount owed and stated she was
     told that if she sent in the payment $701.00 that the
     account would be full paid and she said she stated that
     on her check (if check was cashed that would be
     agreeing account was full paid)

     On November 19, 2008, the Appeals Office issued a notice of

determination sustaining the proposed levy. The notice of

determination stated that Mostafa had attempted to raise the

issue of her underlying tax liability but that she could not do

so because she had received a deficiency notice.   Mostafa filed a

petition with the Tax Court to challenge the determination.     When

she filed her petition, she resided in Oregon.

                              OPINION

     In her posttrial brief Mostafa claims that “this case should

be closed” because the IRS accepted her $701 check.   The IRS

argues that the cashing of the check did not constitute an

agreement to compromise Mostafa’s 1996 tax liability and

therefore did not close the case.

     After taking into account the trial evidence about the $701

check, we find that Mostafa did not compromise her 1996 income-

tax liability.   In Laurins v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 910, 912

(9th Cir. 1989), affg. Norman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-

265, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the
                                 - 4 -

IRS’s cashing of a taxpayer’s check for $2,376.70 did not

compromise the taxpayer’s liability even though the back of the

check stated that the check was in “‘full accord and satisfaction

of 1977 and all prior years.’”    The Court of Appeals reasoned

that the taxpayer did not use the IRS’s special form for an

offer-in-compromise, and that the IRS did not notify the taxpayer

that it accepted the offer.   Similarly, there is no proof that

Mostafa made an offer on the form required by the IRS or that the

IRS accepted the offer in writing.

     In reaching our holding, we have considered all arguments

made, and to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are

moot, irrelevant, or without merit.



                                          Decision will be entered

                                     for respondent.
