                         T.C. Memo. 2003-141



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  STEVEN G. ORR, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 8305-02L.               Filed May 19, 2003.



     Steven G. Orr, pro se.

     Gary M. Slavett, for respondent.



               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GERBER, Judge:    Petitioner appealed to this Court from

respondent’s determination to go forward with the collection of

petitioner’s outstanding and unpaid 1995 and 1996 tax

liabilities.   This case was calendared for trial at the Court’s

March 24, 2003, Los Angeles, California, trial session.   On March

31, 2003, the parties appeared, and petitioner provided testimony
                               - 2 -

and argument.   Respondent contends and we agree that this Court’s

review in this case is limited to the question of whether

respondent abused his discretion in determining to proceed with

collection of petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 income tax liabilities.

Petitioner argues that he has been denied due process and that

his rights have been violated in prior proceedings before this

and other courts.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 tax years were before this Court

(designated docket No. 9029-99), and after a trial on the merits,

a bench opinion was rendered on April 7, 2000.     The bench opinion

addressed whether petitioner and his wife were entitled to claim

itemized deductions on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of their

return regarding petitioner’s employment and other miscellaneous

items.   Respondent, in accord with the decision entered pursuant

to the holding in the bench opinion, assessed income tax of

$4,186 and $2,557 for petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 tax years,

respectively.   Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit and, on April 18, 2001, this Court’s decision

was affirmed in an unpublished opinion.      Orr v. Commissioner, 87

AFTR 2d 2001-832 (9th Cir. 2001).

     On February 9, 2001, respondent issued a Form 1058, Final

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

to petitioner, and on March 9, 2001, petitioner submitted a Form
                               - 3 -

12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, with respect

to his 1995 and 1996 years.   After the cancellation of two

previously scheduled section 63301 hearings, one was held with

petitioner on February 22, 2002.    At that hearing, petitioner

raised only questions concerning the merits of his underlying tax

liabilities, which the Appeals officer advised could not be

considered because petitioner had already had that opportunity

before the Tax Court.   The Appeals officer offered petitioner

collection alternatives and provided forms for an offer in

compromise.   At the hearing petitioner provided the Appeals

officer with 10 checks, each in the amount of $20.42, which

petitioner had received from the Treasury of the United States

(the Treasury) and wished to have applied to his 1995 liability.

     Following the conference with Appeals, petitioner supplied

completed offer-in-compromise forms, and a determination was made

that petitioner had sufficient assets to pay the outstanding 1995

and 1996 tax liabilities in full.    Accordingly, a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 concluding that respondent may proceed with

collection of petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities was

mailed to petitioner, and he appealed to this Court.




     1
       All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue.
                              - 4 -

                              OPINION

     Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the

circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a

hearing which consists of the following elements:   (1) An

impartial officer will conduct the hearing; (2) the conducting

officer will receive verification from the Secretary that the

requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have

been met; (3) certain issues may be heard such as spousal

defenses and offers-in-compromise; and (4) a challenge to the

underlying liability may be raised if the taxpayer did not

receive a statutory notice of deficiency or otherwise receive an

opportunity to dispute the liability.   Sec. 6330(c).

     Concerning the tax years under consideration, petitioner

already had an opportunity, before this Court and the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to question the underlying merits

of the income tax deficiencies for 1995 and 1996.   Accordingly,

petitioner is not entitled to contest the underlying merits of

his 1995 and 1996 income tax liabilities.   See sec.

6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner 114 T.C. 604 (2000); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000).

     Petitioner has not raised any arguments other than those

that question the merits of his liabilities; i.e., he raised no

issues about the conduct of the hearing or verification that

administrative procedures had been followed, or about collection
                                 - 5 -

alternatives.   Petitioner submitted voluminous materials,

including his testimony concerning his employment by the

Department of the Treasury and his claim that he was a “whistle

blower”.   Petitioner contends that the Department of the Treasury

has conspired with the Internal Revenue Service to pursue

petitioner by harassing him with income tax matters.       Petitioner

also believes that the Federal court system has participated in

some form of Government collusion against him.       The provisions of

section 6330 do not provide petitioner with a forum in this

proceeding to address such matters.       Simply, petitioner’s

allegations, if proven, go to the underlying merits of his 1995

and 1996 tax liabilities, and under section 6330(c)(2)(B),

petitioner is precluded from raising the merits where he already

had an opportunity to do so.

     Respondent has provided petitioner with a section 6330

hearing, and petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion by

respondent.   Accordingly, we hold that respondent did not abuse

his discretion in determining to proceed with enforced collection

of petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 income tax liabilities.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered

                                 permitting respondent to proceed

                                 with collection.
