                          T.C. Memo. 2005-193



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 RANDY R. ROMANO, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 24328-04L.              Filed August 8, 2005.


     Randy R. Romano, pro se.

     James N. Beyer, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WELLS, Judge:   This matter is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as

amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

                              Background

     At the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner

resided in Levittown, Pennsylvania.

     Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for the

1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years.    Consequently, respondent sent

petitioner a notice of deficiency for those 3 years, dated

January 31, 2003.   Petitioner received the notice but did not

petition this Court for a redetermination with respect to the

notice.   Petitioner filed an untimely Federal income tax return

for the 2001 tax year but failed to pay the taxes due.

     Respondent sent petitioner two Letters 1058, Final Notice--

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

both dated June 9, 2004.   On June 29, 2004, respondent received a

timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing,

which petitioner submitted for the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 tax

years.

     Respondent’s Appeals officer and petitioner held a telephone

hearing on November 10, 2004.    During the hearing, petitioner

stated that he “already paid more taxes than he should have” and

“had no federal taxes withheld during the years at issue because

no one told him otherwise”.    Respondent’s Appeals officer

discussed collection alternatives with petitioner.    However,

petitioner stated that he did not want to pay the outstanding

liabilities and wanted to proceed to court.

     On November 17, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a
                               - 3 -

Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under

Section 6320 and/or 6330.   Thereafter, petitioner filed a timely

petition with this Court on December 22, 2004.1

     In the petition, petitioner alleges that he is not obligated

to pay Federal income taxes, stating:

     After reading the tax code I determined that I was not
     obligated to pay Federal Income tax. I filed EXEMPT W-
     4 Form with my employer and sent paper work to the IRS
     stating my position through certified mail. I asked
     the IRS to get back to me within 30 days. I did not
     hear anything from the IRS until 6 YEARS later.
     Interest + penalties accured. The IRS was negligent.

Thus, it appears that petitioner is attempting to challenge the

underlying tax liabilities for the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 tax

years.

                             Discussion

     The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation

and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials.    Fla. Peach Corp. v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).    A motion for summary

judgment may be granted where there is no dispute as to a

material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.

See Rule 121(a) and (b).    The moving party bears the burden of

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

factual inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the

nonmoving party.   Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 260

     1
      In his petition, petitioner incorrectly selected the box on
the Court’s standard petition form for “Petition for
Redetermination of a Deficiency”. The Court has treated the
petition as a “Petition for Lien or Levy Action”.
                                - 4 -

(2002).   The party opposing summary judgment must set forth

specific facts which show that a question of genuine material

fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in

the pleadings.   See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v.

Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v.

Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

     Section 6330(c)(2)(A) prescribes issues that may be raised

by a taxpayer in a section 6330 hearing, including spousal

defenses to collection, challenges to the appropriateness of the

Commissioner’s intended collection action, and offers of

collection alternatives.    Unless the taxpayer did not receive a

notice of deficiency for the taxes in question or did not

otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability, the

section 6330 hearing is not a forum to contest the existence or

amount of the underlying taxes.   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

     Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is

properly in issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.

However, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is

not properly in issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s

administrative determination for abuse of discretion.    Sego v.

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

T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).

     Although petitioner received a notice of deficiency for the

1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years, he did not avail himself of the

opportunity to file a petition for redetermination with the
                                - 5 -

Court.    Section 6330(c)(2)(B) therefore precluded petitioner from

contesting his liability for the underlying taxes for those years

in the hearing.

     Because petitioner could not properly challenge the

existence or amount of the underlying liability with respect to

the 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years in the hearing, that issue is

not properly before this Court.    See Goza v. Commissioner, supra.

This Court will review respondent’s determination with respect to

the 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years for abuse of discretion.

     Petitioner failed to assert any of the claims enumerated

under section 6330(c)(2)(A) in the hearing.   In particular,

petitioner did not challenge the appropriateness of the intended

method of collection or offer a collection alternative, or raise

any such issue before the Court.   Consequently, there is no

dispute as to material fact with respect to the 1998, 1999, and

2000 tax years.   Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in

respondent’s determination.

     Petitioner did not receive a notice of deficiency for tax

year 2001 or have an opportunity to dispute that liability before

the hearing.   To the extent petitioner is attempting to challenge

the underlying Federal income tax liability for the 2001 tax

year, that challenge is appropriate, even though the liability

was self-reported.   See Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1

(2004).

     Rule 331(b)(4) states that a petition for review of an
                               - 6 -

administrative determination filed pursuant to section 6330 shall

contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error

which the petitioner alleges to have been committed in the levy

determination and any issue not raised in the assignments of

error shall be deemed to be conceded.    Additionally, Rule

331(b)(5) states that such a petition shall contain clear and

concise lettered statements of the facts on which the petitioner

bases each assignment of error.

     In the petition, petitioner only makes the broad assertion

that he does not have to pay taxes.    There are neither specific

assignments of error nor any statement of facts.    Petitioner did

not set forth in the petition any specific issues or factual

basis for his disagreement with the tax liabilities reported on

his 2001 return.   Consequently, there is no genuine issue of

material fact, and respondent is entitled to summary judgment

with respect to the 2001 tax year.     See Poindexter v.

Commissioner, 122 T.C. 280 (2004), affd. 132 Fed. Appx. 919 (2d

Cir. 2005).
                            - 7 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                         An appropriate order and

                                    decision will be entered for

                                    respondent.
