                         T.C. Memo. 2009-236



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   LOUIE ELIAS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5988-07L.               Filed October 15, 2009.



     Louie Elias, pro se.

     Linette B. Angelastro, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

     Petitioner filed a petition in response to respondent’s

Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under
                               - 2 -

Section 6320 and/or 63301 with respect to petitioner’s income tax

liabilities for taxable years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

     We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and respondent is entitled to a decision as a

matter of law.

                            Background

     Petitioner did not file income tax returns for taxable years

2002 and 2003.   Respondent issued a notice of deficiency on April

5, 2005, for taxable year 2002.    Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $8,719 and

penalties of $2,879.03.   Petitioner did not petition the Court.

     Respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency for

taxable year 2003.   Petitioner did not petition the Court.

     For taxable year 2004 petitioner filed a return showing a

balance due that he left unpaid.    The tax of $8,906 reported as

due was assessed by the IRS on June 20, 2005.

     On July 26, 2006, the IRS issued petitioner a Final Notice–-

Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing

regarding his outstanding 2002, 2003, and 2004 income tax

liabilities.   Petitioner timely submitted a Form 12153, Request

for a Collection Due Process Hearing.    In his request petitioner

argued that he was not a taxpayer and stated that he did not have


     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.
                               - 3 -

any tax liabilities, using arguments the Court has previously

found to be frivolous.

     Petitioner’s collection due process case was assigned to

Settlement Officer M. Sophie Tittle (Ms. Tittle).   Ms. Tittle

scheduled a telephone conference with petitioner for January 9,

2007.   In a letter to petitioner, Ms. Tittle explained that only

nonfrivolous arguments would be discussed and that if petitioner

wanted a face-to-face meeting, he had to submit in writing a

nonfrivolous issue.   Petitioner sent Ms. Tittle a letter

requesting her to cancel his scheduled telephone hearing.     Ms.

Tittle did as petitioner requested and informed petitioner that

he would have a correspondence hearing based on his current

administrative file if she did not hear from him or receive

additional information by January 12, 2007.

     On December 18, 2006, and January 3, 2007, Ms. Tittle

received letters from petitioner requesting a face-to-face

hearing.   Neither letter raised a nonfrivolous issue.   On

February 9, 2007, the IRS issued petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 sustaining the notice of intent to levy.

     Petitioner timely petitioned this Court on March 12, 2007.

On July 31, 2007, all proceedings were stayed after this Court

received notice that petitioner had filed a proceeding in

bankruptcy.   Petitioner’s bankruptcy case was dismissed and the
                               - 4 -

stay was lifted on October 19, 2007.      On June 6, 2008, all

proceedings were stayed again after this Court received notice

that petitioner had filed a proceeding in bankruptcy.

Petitioner’s bankruptcy case was dismissed and the stay was

lifted on October 2, 2008.   On December 2, 2008, respondent’s

motion for summary judgment was heard.      Petitioner did not appear

at the hearing.

                             Discussion

I.   Summary Judgment

      The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation

and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials.         Fla.

Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).      Summary

judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, answers to

interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other

acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 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); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753,

754 (1988).

      The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of

proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and all

facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party.   Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985).
                                 - 5 -

However, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations

or denials of the moving party’s pleadings; rather, the nonmoving

party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine

issue for trial.     Rule 121(d); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, supra

at 820-821.

II.   Section 6330

      Section 6330(a) provides that no levy may be made on any

property of a taxpayer unless the Secretary has first notified

the taxpayer in writing of his right to a section 6330 hearing.

If the taxpayer properly requests a hearing under section

6330(a), the taxpayer is entitled to a hearing before an

impartial officer of the IRS Appeals Office.       Sec. 6330(b).     At

the hearing, the taxpayer may raise any relevant issue related to

the unpaid tax or proposed levy, including spousal defenses,

challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action, and

offers of collection alternatives.       Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).   The

taxpayer may also challenge the underlying tax liability, but

only if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of

deficiency or did not otherwise have a prior opportunity to

dispute the tax liability.    Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

      Following the hearing, the hearing officer must determine

whether the proposed collection action should proceed.         In making

the determination the hearing officer shall take into

consideration:   (1) Whether the requirements of all applicable
                               - 6 -

laws and administrative procedures have been satisfied; (2) any

relevant issues raised by the taxpayer during the section 6330

hearing; and (3) whether the proposed collection action balances

the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer’s

legitimate concern that any collection action be no more

intrusive than necessary.   Sec. 6330(c)(3).

     In determining whether all applicable laws and

administrative procedures have been followed, a hearing officer

is not required to rely on any particular document.    Craig v.

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 261-262 (2002).

     In evaluating a taxpayer’s arguments, a hearing officer is

not required to consider irrelevant or frivolous arguments.

Thus, it is not an abuse of discretion for an Appeals officer to

deny a taxpayer’s request for a face-to-face section 6330 hearing

where the taxpayer has raised only frivolous or groundless

arguments.   Moline v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-110; Summers

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-219.

     This Court has jurisdiction to review the Appeals officer’s

determination.   Sec. 6330(d)(1).   Where the taxpayer’s underlying

liability was not properly at issue in the hearing, we review the

determination for abuse of discretion.    Sego v. Commissioner, 114

T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182

(2000).   An Appeals officer’s determination will not be an abuse

of discretion unless the determination is arbitrary, capricious,
                                 - 7 -

or without sound basis in fact or law.      Giamelli v. Commissioner,

129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007); Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 23

(2005).

       For taxable years 2002 and 2003 respondent issued petitioner

notices of deficiency and petitioner did not file a petition with

the Court.    Thus, petitioner, if he received the notices, cannot

challenge his underlying liability for those years.     For taxable

year 2004 respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency but

assessed the tax reported as due on petitioner’s return.

       Ms. Tittle verified that respondent followed all applicable

laws and administrative procedures.      The record establishes that,

as required by section 6330(c), in making its determination the

Appeals Office properly balanced the need for the efficient

collection of tax with petitioner’s legitimate concern that

collection be no more intrusive than necessary.     During

petitioner’s correspondence with Ms. Tittle he failed to raise

nonfrivolous arguments, failed to provide additional information,

and canceled his scheduled telephone hearing, insisting that he

be provided a face-to-face hearing.      Petitioner did not show why

it would be unfair or unduly intrusive to proceed with the

collection action.

III.    Petitioner’s Arguments

       Petitioner failed to identify any nonfrivolous argument

despite repeated requests that he do so.     Petitioner repeatedly
                                 - 8 -

insisted that Ms. Tittle grant his request for a face-to-face

hearing.   As stated above, it is not an abuse of discretion to

deny petitioner a face-to-face hearing because he has raised only

frivolous and groundless arguments.      See Moline v. Commissioner,

supra.

     We conclude on the record before us that there is no genuine

issue of material fact requiring a trial and respondent is

entitled to a decision as a matter of law.      We sustain

respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of

petitioner’s 2002, 2003, and 2004 Federal income tax liabilities.

     In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all

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

above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.

     We take this opportunity to warn petitioner that the Court

will impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 if he returns to

the Court and proceeds in a similar fashion in the future.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An appropriate order and

                                         decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
