                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-15



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 PAUL THOMAS DEMOS, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1483-04S.            Filed January 30, 2006.


     Paul Thomas Demos, pro se.

     Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.



     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463 of the

Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.   The

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise

indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code, as amended.
                               - 2 -

     This proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review

filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning

Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of

determination) sent to petitioner on December 30, 2003.   Pursuant

to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of

respondent’s determination sustaining the filing of two notices

of Federal tax liens against petitioner.

     The issues for decision are:   (1)   Whether petitioner’s case

regarding the filing of the notices of Federal tax liens is moot;

(2) whether petitioner may raise the underlying tax liability for

any of the years in issue, and if so, whether any adjustment is

appropriate; and (3) whether respondent abused his discretion in

failing to abate interest and additions to tax.

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

found.   Petitioner resided in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time the

petition was filed.

                            Background

     Petitioner filed his 1995 Federal income tax return on June

12, 1996.   Petitioner and his wife timely filed joint 1996, 1997,

and 1998 Federal income tax returns.1




     1
        Petitioner’s wife, Kristin K. Demos, is not a party to
these proceedings because she did not request a hearing and she
did not file a petition.
                                 - 3 -

1995 and 1996

     Petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 tax returns were selected for

examination, and respondent proposed adjustments.   On March 12,

1998, respondent issued a 30-day letter to petitioner for the

taxable year 1995.   On the same date, respondent issued a 30-day

letter to petitioner and his wife for the taxable year 1996.

Petitioner agreed with the adjustments proposed by respondent for

1995 and signed the Form 4549-CG, Income Tax Examination Changes.

The Form 4549-CG for 1995 included a corrected liability and an

addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).   Petitioner and his

wife agreed with the adjustments proposed by respondent for 1996,

and they each signed the Form 4549-CG.

     Petitioner returned the signed Forms 4549-CG to respondent,

by letter dated April 9, 1998.    In the letter, petitioner asked

respondent to make further adjustments to his 1995 tax return.

Petitioner asserted that payments he received from a third party

were salary and not self-employment income as characterized by

the payor.   Petitioner enclosed with the April 9 letter an

advance payment of $650, which he asked respondent to apply to

his “past due self-employment tax” for the 1995 tax year.

Respondent applied the $650 payment to petitioner’s 1995 tax

liability on April 13, 1998.

     In the April 9, 1998, letter, petitioner also requested that

respondent prepare an installment agreement because petitioner
                                 - 4 -

wanted to pay the outstanding tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996.

At some point, petitioner and respondent entered into an

installment agreement.   The record does not reflect the terms of

the agreement.   Petitioner made four separate payments during

1998, totaling $550, which were applied to his 1995 tax

liability.   Petitioner apparently defaulted on the installment

agreement on May 10, 1999.

1997 and 1998

     Petitioner’s tax liabilities for 1997 and 1998 were assessed

in amounts as reported by petitioner and his wife on the

respective returns.   Petitioner made a payment of $617.39 when

the 1997 tax return was filed.    Petitioner made an additional

payment of $350 with respect to the 1997 tax liability on June

13, 1998.    Petitioner made a payment of $1,584.97 when the 1998

tax return was filed.    As of December 7, 2000, there were

outstanding balances due on both the 1997 and the 1998 returns as

filed.

Collection History

     On December 7, 2000, respondent filed two notices of Federal

tax liens for assessments made for all tax years in question.     On

December 12, 2000, respondent sent by certified mail to

petitioner, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to

a Hearing Under IRC 6320 (the 3172 Letter).    On January 5, 2001,

petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection
                                - 5 -

Due Process Hearing (CDP hearing request).      Respondent

temporarily lost the CDP hearing request.

     On January 17, 2001, petitioner submitted a Form 656, Offer

in Compromise (OIC).   Petitioner offered $1,300 in satisfaction

of the balance due for the tax years in question.2      Petitioner’s

wife did not sign the initial OIC.      Respondent rejected the OIC

because petitioner failed to respond to a letter requesting

additional documentation.    Petitioner did not execute a new OIC

that included both his and his wife’s signatures.       Respondent

closed the OIC file on May 15, 2002.

     In April 2001, a portion of petitioner’s overpayment for tax

year 2000 was applied to the underpayment for the 1995 tax year.

The liability was paid in full, and on May 18, 2001, the Federal

tax lien for 1995 was released.      In August 2001, the remainder of

petitioner’s overpayment for tax year 2000 was applied to the

underpayment for the 1996 tax year.     Petitioner does not dispute

the propriety of the offsets to the years in issue.




     2
        Petitioner’s tax liability for the years in question as
of Dec. 7, 2000:

               Form         Tax Year        Balance Due

               1040           1995          $  433.68
               1040           1996           1,623.18
               1040           1997           3,728.66
               1040           1998           3,954.03
                                   - 6 -

     Petitioner’s CDP hearing occurred on October 24, 2003.        At

the hearing petitioner asserted that he was adversely affected by

the loss of the CDP hearing request.       Petitioner paid the tax

liabilities due with respect to 1997 and 1998 on November 24,

2003.       On December 5, 2003, approximately 6 weeks after the

Appeals Office hearing, the Federal tax lien for the 1996, 1997,

and 1998 tax years was released.

     As indicated, a notice of determination was issued on

December 30, 2003.       The Appeals officer determined that

respondent’s collection action under section 6320 was proper,

that the taxes were properly assessed, and that the notices of

Federal tax liens were properly recorded.       The Appeals officer

further indicated that the tax liabilities for all years in issue

were paid in full, that the notice of Federal tax lien for 1995

had been released, and that the release of lien for 1996, 1997,

and 1998 was forwarded to the Maricopa County Recorder.3

     Petitioner asserts that he entered into an agreement with

respondent for the payment of his 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities,

which allowed him to make payments of principal only, permitting

a waiver of all interest and “penalties”.4      Petitioner asserts


        3
        As noted earlier, the 1996, 1997, and 1998 lien was
actually released on Dec. 5, 2003, prior to the issuance of the
notice of determination.
        4
        An addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(2) for failure to
timely pay the tax shown as due on the 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 7 -

that he should have been permitted to contest the underlying tax

liabilities at the hearing.    Petitioner asserts that respondent’s

delay in processing his hearing request resulted in additional

interest accruing on the tax liabilities.

     Respondent asserts that petitioner’s case is moot because

the underlying tax was paid, the tax liabilities, including

interest, and additions to tax have been paid, and the notices of

Federal tax liens for all years in question have been released.

Furthermore, respondent asserts that petitioner cannot dispute

the 1995 and the 1996 tax liabilities because petitioner had a

prior opportunity to dispute the tax and waived his right to

dispute the underlying liabilities by his agreement to the

assessment of the tax for each year.       As to all tax years in

issue, respondent asserts that petitioner is not entitled to

abatement of interest and additions to tax.

                              Discussion

Mootness

     This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the

Commissioner’s administrative determinations.       Sec. 6330(d); see

Iannone v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 287, 290 (2004).       We have also

stated that our review is generally limited to whether the




     4
     (...continued)
tax returns was also assessed.
                                - 8 -

proposed lien or levy is proper.    Gerakios v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2004-203; Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-152.

       We first consider whether the issues in this proceeding are

moot.    The notice of Federal tax lien filed for the 1995 tax year

was released on May 18, 2001.    The notice of Federal tax lien

filed for the 1996, 1997, and 1998 tax years was released on

December 5, 2003.    Thus, as of December 30, 2003, the date the

notice of determination was issued, all the tax liabilities were

fully paid and all notices of Federal tax liens were released.

       The Court’s jurisdiction under section 6330 is generally

limited to reviewing whether the proposed lien or levy is proper.

Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14 (2005).      Since all the liens

in this matter have, in fact, been released, we conclude that the

matter is moot.    See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C.

(2006); Gerakios v. Commissioner, supra; Chocallo v.

Commissioner, supra.

       Having concluded that any issues regarding the filing of

notices of Federal tax liens are moot, we do not consider any

claim made by petitioner as to the underlying tax liabilities,

and petitioner’s claim for abatement of interest and additions to

tax.    Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, supra.

       We note that petitioner claimed that respondent violated his

due process rights.    Petitioner did not cite or rely on any

specific statute as a basis for this claim, and we generally have
                                 - 9 -

no jurisdiction over such matters.       See Chocallo v. Commissioner,

supra.   If petitioner meant to make a section 7433 claim, which

provides up to $1 million in civil damages, we note that such

claims must be brought in a District Court of the United States.

Sec. 7433(a); Chocallo v. Commissioner, supra.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                             An appropriate order or

                                     dismissal will be entered.
