                          T.C. Memo. 2003-172



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 JOHN JOSEPH WINGERT, Petitioner v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



       Docket No. 9433-01L.             Filed June 11, 2003.



       John Joseph Wingert, pro se.

       Ann M. Welhaf and Jeffrey E. Gold, for respondent.



               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


       COLVIN, Judge:   Respondent sent petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Sections 6320

and/or 6330 (the lien or levy determination) on July 13, 2001, in

which respondent determined to proceed with collection from

petitioner of his tax liabilities for 1994, 1995, and 1996 (1994-

96).    The issue for decision is whether respondent’s
                                   - 2 -

determination was an abuse of discretion.      We hold that it was

not.

       Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the applicable years.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

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

A.     Petitioner

       Petitioner resided in Dundalk, Maryland, when he filed the

petition.

       Petitioner timely filed his income tax returns for 1994-96.

He reported that he owed $823 for 1994, $2,227 for 1995, and $796

for 1996, but he did not pay those amounts when he filed his

returns.

B.     The Bankruptcy Proceeding

       On June 6, 1997, petitioner filed a petition with the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (bankruptcy court)

under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.      The bankruptcy

court converted his Chapter 13 proceeding to a Chapter 7

proceeding on August 15, 1997.      He received a discharge under

Chapter 7 on December 22, 1997.

C.     The Lien and Levy Proceeding

       Respondent sought to collect the tax that petitioner

reported on his income tax returns that he owed for 1994-96, but

did not pay when he filed those returns.      On November 18, 2000,
                               - 3 -

respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Intent To Levy and

Notice of Your Right to a Hearing relating to his tax years 1994-

96.   Petitioner timely requested a hearing.

      On June 27, 2001, Keith B. Coleman (Coleman), respondent’s

Appeals officer, held a hearing relating to petitioner’s tax

years 1994-96.

      On July 13, 2001, respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 in which respondent determined to proceed with

collection from petitioner of his tax liabilities for 1994-96.

                              OPINION

A.    Whether $5,243.13 of Petitioner’s Bankruptcy Estate Was Used
      To Pay His Tax Liabilities for 1994-96

      Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination to

proceed with collection was an abuse of discretion because

respondent improperly failed to recognize that $5,243.13 of his

bankruptcy estate was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes.   We

disagree.

      Petitioner introduced no credible evidence showing that

$5,243.13 of his bankruptcy estate was used to pay his 1994-96

taxes.   He testified that $5,243.13 of the proceeds from the

forced sale in bankruptcy of his house was used to pay his 1994-

96 taxes.   However, he conceded that respondent did not receive

the $5,243.13.   No documentary evidence suggests that any of the

bankruptcy estate was used to pay petitioner’s 1994-96 taxes.
                                - 4 -

Petitioner failed to show that $5,243.13 of his bankruptcy estate

was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes.

B.   Whether Respondent’s Determination To Proceed With
     Collection Was an Abuse of Discretion

     Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination to

proceed with collection was an abuse of discretion because he

spent about $18,000 in prosecuting various claims against the

Government.   We disagree.   Petitioner is entitled to no credit

against his unpaid tax based on those claimed costs.

     We conclude that respondent’s determination to proceed with

collection of his 1994-96 tax liabilities was not an abuse of

discretion.

                                                  Decision will be

                                        entered for respondent.
