                         T.C. Memo. 2003-22



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          MIRIAM-MAJADILLAS EISELSTEIN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7613-02L.              Filed January 22, 2003.


     Miriam-Majadillas Eiselstein, pro se.

     Robert S. Scarbrough, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty

under I.R.C. section 6673.1




     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.
                                - 2 -

       Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary

judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy.

Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is

demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material

fact, and a decision may be entered 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).

       We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of

law.

Background

       Petitioner is a registered nurse.

       On or about May 7, 1997, respondent received from petitioner

her Federal income tax return for 1996.    Petitioner listed her

income and tax liability as zero and requested a refund of

$8,119.90--the amount of Federal income tax withheld by her

employers.    Petitioner attached the following to her 1996 return:

(1) A two-page statement containing frivolous arguments, (2) a

Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from Valley Medical Center

listing $58,973.92 in wages paid to her, and (3) a Form W-2 from

St. Joseph Medical Center listing $3,757 in wages paid to her.

       On or about May 4, 1998, respondent received from petitioner

her Federal income tax return for 1997.    Petitioner listed her

income and tax liability as zero and requested a refund of
                                 - 3 -

$3,723.41--the amount of Federal income tax withheld by her

employer.   Petitioner attached the following to her 1997 return:

(1) A two-page statement containing frivolous arguments, and (2)

a Form W-2 from Valley Medical Center listing $72,173.66 in wages

paid to her.

     On January 8, 1999, respondent sent petitioner separate

statutory notices of deficiency for 1996 and 1997.   Respondent

determined a $12,609 deficiency and a $898 penalty pursuant to

section 6662(a) for 1996 and a $15,285 deficiency and a $2,312.32

penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for 1997.   Petitioner

received both these notices of deficiency.

     On or about May 7, 1999, respondent received from petitioner

her Federal income tax return for 1998.   Petitioner listed her

income and tax liability as zero and requested no refund--she had

no Federal income tax withheld by her employer or the Washington

State lottery.   Petitioner attached the following to her 1998

return:   (1) A two-page statement containing frivolous arguments,

(2) a Form W-2 from Valley Medical Center listing $79,788.01 in

wages paid to her, and (3) a Form W-2G, Statement for Recipients

of Certain Gambling Winnings, from the Washington State lottery

listing $1,000 of gross winnings won on June 27, 1998.

     On February 25, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a statutory

notice of deficiency for 1998.    Respondent determined a $17,779

deficiency and $3,555.80 in penalties pursuant to section 6662(a)
                                - 4 -

and (b)(1) for 1998.    Petitioner received this notice of

deficiency.

     Petitioner did not petition the Court for redetermination of

the deficiencies or penalties with respect to 1996, 1997, or

1998.   On June 14, 1999, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax

liabilities, along with penalties and interest, for 1996 and

1997.   On August 7, 2000, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax

liability, along with penalties and interest, for 1998.

     On or about June 7, 2001, respondent filed a Notice of

Federal Tax Lien regarding petitioner’s income tax liabilities

for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with the county auditor of

King County, Seattle, Washington (tax lien).    The tax lien listed

the following amounts owed:

           Tax Period       Type of Tax        Amount Owed

              1996              1040            $6,452.24
              1997              1040            15,190.72
              1998              1040            23,781.91
              1996              CIVP               500.00
              1997              CIVP               500.00
              1998              CIVP               500.00
              1999              CIVP               500.00
              2000              CIVP               500.00

     On June 12, 2001, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice

of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC

6320 regarding her income tax liabilities for 1996, 1997, and

1998 (hearing notice).

     On or about June 25, 2001, petitioner submitted a Form

12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding
                               - 5 -

her 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years (hearing

request).2

     Petitioner attended an Appeals Office hearing (hearing) with

Appeals Officer J.A. Vander Linden.    The Appeals officer reviewed

petitioner’s administrative file and transcripts of account for

the years in issue.   At the hearing, petitioner raised only

frivolous issues and arguments.

     On March 22, 2002, respondent issued a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 to petitioner regarding her 1996, 1997, and 1998 tax

years (notice of determination).   In the notice of determination,

respondent determined that the Federal Tax Lien should remain in

place.

     On April 22, 2002, petitioner timely filed a petition for

lien or levy action under Code section 6320(c) or 6330(d) seeking

review of respondent’s determination to proceed with collection

of petitioner’s 1996, 1997, and 1998 tax liabilities.

     On November 6, 2002, respondent filed a motion for summary

judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673.    Attached as

exhibits to the motion for summary judgment are literal

transcripts and computer generated transcripts (TAXMODA) of



     2
        On Sept. 6, 2002, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
the portions of the petition that related to the sec. 6702
frivolous return penalties for 1996 through 1999 and the sec.
6682 false withholding information penalty for 2000.
                               - 6 -

petitioner’s accounts for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

     On November 8, 2002, the Court ordered petitioner to file a

response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment on or before

December 9, 2002.   Petitioner did not file a response to

respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

Discussion

     Section 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the

person described in section 6321 with written notice (i.e., the

hearing notice) of the filing of a notice of lien under section

6323.   Section 6320 further provides that the taxpayer may

request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a

hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period.    The hearing

generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set

forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e).    Sec. 6320(c).

     The petition in this case is a 16-page document filled with

frivolous, tax-protester arguments.    Petitioner appears to

challenge the underlying liability.    Petitioner received

statutory notices of deficiency for each of the years in issue

and did not file a petition for redetermination.    Accordingly,

petitioner cannot contest the underlying deficiencies for 1996,

1997, and 1998.   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114

T.C. 604, 610-611 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176,

182-183 (2000).

     Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
                                - 7 -

properly in issue, we review respondent’s determination for an

abuse of discretion.   Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.

     Petitioner appears to argue that at the hearing she was not

provided documents demonstrating that the verification

requirement of section 6330 had been met.     At the hearing, the

Commissioner is not required to provide the taxpayer with a copy

of verification that the requirements of any applicable law or

administrative procedure had been met.      Nestor v. Commissioner,

118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002).   In any event, petitioner has

received copies of her transcripts of account for the years in

issue.   See Villwock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-235 n.4.

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent did not abuse his

discretion by not providing this information to petitioner at the

hearing.

     Petitioner also appears to argue that the documents

furnished to her fail to show that the verification requirement

of section 6330 has been met.    Section 6330(c)(1) does not

require the Commissioner to rely on a particular document to

satisfy the verification requirement imposed therein.    E.g.,

Schnitzler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-159 (citing five

other cases to support this principle).   We have repeatedly held

that the Commissioner may rely on transcripts of account to

satisfy the verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1).      Id.;

Kaeckell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-114; Obersteller v.
                               - 8 -

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-106; Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2002-88; Lindsey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87;

Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86; Duffield v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-53; Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2002-51.

     Petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the

assessment procedure that would raise a question about the

validity of the assessments or the information contained in the

transcripts of account.   Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41

(2000); Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48.    Accordingly,

we hold that the verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1)

has been satisfied.   Cf. Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117,

120-121 (2001).

     Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a

valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended

collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.

These issues are now deemed conceded.   Rule 331(b)(4).

     Accordingly, we conclude that respondent did not abuse his

discretion and sustain respondent’s determination.

     Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed

$25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the

proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay.

In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000), we issued
                                 - 9 -

an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposition of

a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) on those taxpayers who

abuse the protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by

instituting or maintaining actions under those sections primarily

for delay or by taking frivolous or groundless positions in such

actions.

     In the petition and several other documents petitioner has

submitted to the Court, petitioner raised frivolous tax-protester

arguments and contentions that we have previously rejected and

which we conclude were interposed primarily for delay.       This has

caused the Court to waste its limited resources.       Accordingly, we

shall impose a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to section 6673.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              An appropriate order and

                                         decision will be entered.
