                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-104



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 LYLE D. GULDAGER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent




     Docket No. 28389-09S.            Filed July 28, 2010.



     Lyle D. Guldager, pro se.

     Susan K. Bollman, for respondent.



     KROUPA, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b),

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



     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
(Code), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
                                 - 2 -

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.

       This collection review case involves a proposed Federal tax

levy to collect petitioner’s unpaid liability he admits he owes

for the taxable year 2007.    The sole issue for decision is

whether respondent’s determination to proceed with the proposed

collection activity was an abuse of discretion.     We hold it was

not.

                             Background

       This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rule

122, and the facts are so found.    The stipulations of fact and

their accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this reference.

Petitioner resided in Iowa at the time he filed the petition.

       Petitioner sold 40 acres of farmland for $310,000 in 2007 in

which he had a $103,782 basis.    Petitioner reported a $25,289 tax

due from the sale for 2007 yet paid only $500 with the return.

Respondent assessed petitioner’s reported income tax liability

for 2007 along with interest and an addition to tax for failure

to pay estimated tax.    Respondent notified petitioner of the

assessment and demanded full payment.     Petitioner made an

additional $500 payment but failed to pay the remaining assessed

amount.
                                - 3 -

     Respondent issued petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to

Levy (levy notice) to collect the outstanding tax liability for

2007.   Petitioner timely requested a collection due process

hearing (CDP hearing) so respondent’s Appeals Office could

consider an offer in compromise (OIC).

     Petitioner’s CDP hearing was assigned to Settlement Officer

Debra Alcorte (SO Alcorte).   SO Alcorte requested that petitioner

submit his complete financial information on Form 433-A,

Collection Information Statement.   SO Alcorte also asked

petitioner to submit a Form 656, Offer in Compromise, so that SO

Alcorte could consider petitioner’s OIC.   Petitioner submitted

his financial information but never submitted an OIC or Form 656.

The financial information on Form 433-A indicated petitioner had

equity in his home of approximately $82,000.

     SO Alcorte and petitioner had a telephone conference after

petitioner failed to appear for a scheduled face-to-face CDP

hearing.   Petitioner told SO Alcorte that he was old and lacked

the funds to pay the balance.   He requested that the equity in

his home not be considered because he wanted to bequeath his home

to his heirs.   Petitioner asked that an OIC be considered, yet he

failed to submit any offer or Form 656 to SO Alcorte.   SO Alcorte

explained to petitioner that no OIC would be considered because

petitioner had enough equity in his assets to pay the outstanding

tax liability for 2007.   Moreover, petitioner never submitted an
                               - 4 -

OIC or Form 656 for SO Alcorte to consider.    With no actual OIC

from petitioner, SO Alcorte closed the case and sustained the

levy in a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)

Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice).

Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court requesting

review of the determination notice.    Petitioner admits he owes

the tax yet argues that SO Alcorte abused her discretion in

implying that petitioner had to sell his home to realize the

equity in it.

                            Discussion

     We now decide whether we should uphold the determination

notice in this collection review case.    We begin with the

standard of review.   Where the validity of the underlying tax

liability is not at issue, as here, the Court will review the

determination for abuse of discretion.     Sego v. Commissioner, 114

T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182

(2000).   Petitioner does not contest the underlying liability.

In fact, he admits he owes the tax.    We therefore must decide

whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily,

capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.    See Woodral

v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).

     Petitioner disputes SO Alcorte’s determination that a levy

is an appropriate action to collect his unpaid tax liability for

2007.   Specifically, petitioner contends that SO Alcorte abused
                                - 5 -

her discretion by suggesting that petitioner could sell his home

to pay his tax liabilities.    Petitioner contends that this method

of collecting taxes is “captious and arbitrary.”

     The record reflects that petitioner did not submit an OIC or

provide other means to secure payment of the outstanding balance

during the CDP hearing.    Petitioner merely requested that SO

Alcorte be empathetic to his plight.    We have frequently and

consistently held there is no abuse of discretion in sustaining a

levy when the taxpayer fails to propose any collection

alternatives.   Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 79 (2005);

Cavazos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-257.    Petitioner failed

to submit an OIC or a Form 656 or to propose any acceptable

collection alternative to the issuance of the levy notice.    SO

Alcorte was left with no choice but to sustain the levy notice.

We similarly have no recourse.2   Petitioner has not presented any

evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that SO Alcorte

abused her discretion.    We therefore conclude that SO Alcorte did

not abuse her discretion in upholding the proposed levy action to

collect the outstanding tax liability from petitioner for 2007.




     2
      Petitioner offers the Court a proposal in his reply brief
to accept $7,000 of his approximate $32,900 tax liability. It is
not the province of the Court to accept any offer. Murphy v.
Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st
Cir. 2006).
                                 - 6 -

     We have considered all arguments made in reaching our

decision, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they

are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
