                         T.C. Memo. 2007-261



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                MITRA H. SALMASSI, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20091-05L.              Filed August 30, 2007.



     Mitra H. Salmassi, pro se.

     Kaelyn J. Romey, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     HALPERN, Judge:    This case is before the Court to review a

determination (the determination) by respondent’s Appeals Office

(Appeals) to proceed with the collection of petitioner’s Federal

income tax liabilities for 2000, 2001, and 2002.    We review the

determination pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).1

     1
        While petitioner checked the box on the petition
indicating that the petition was for redetermination of a
deficiency, clearly this action concerns a collection action, and
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 2 -

     All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of

1986, as amended and as applicable to this case, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Some facts have been stipulated and are so found.   The

stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is incorporated

herein by this reference.

                             Background

     Petitioner assigns error to the determination on the basis

that, in making the determination, Appeals failed to address “the

issue of over $150,000 in capital losses that I have incurred

since tax year 2000.   Clearly there is ‘doubt as to Liability’.

Pursuing collections would violate the law and my rights

according to ‘Effective Tax Administration.’”

     At both the beginning and end of the trial, the Court

endeavored to clarify the basis of petitioner’s assignments of

error.   We summarized our understanding of petitioner’s claims as

follows:   (1) The Appeals employee assigned to her case abused

her discretion by rejecting petitioner’s collection alternatives

for the years in issue; (2) in considering her ability to pay,

the Appeals employee failed to take into account unrealized

losses on securities that petitioner owned; (3) she failed to

allow petitioner to deduct or otherwise take into account for any

of the years in issue her 2002 net capital loss of $80,013, and




     1
      (...continued)
we shall treat it as such.
                                - 3 -

(4) she should have relieved petitioner of failure-to-pay

penalties for the years in issue.

     At trial petitioner’s testimony was brief, dealing mostly

with a decline in the value of her stock portfolio.    She called

no witnesses, and she offered one document, which, because of

respondent’s relevance objection, we did not receive into

evidence.   Respondent did not question petitioner, and he called

no witnesses of his own.    We set a briefing schedule, requiring

seriatim briefs, with respondent to go first.    We explained to

petitioner that, in her brief, she would be able to respond to

respondent’s brief and to raise any additional arguments she

wished to raise.    Petitioner agreed that she was satisfied to

proceed that way.

     Respondent filed an opening brief of 21 pages, requesting 34

proposed findings of fact and addressing petitioner’s claims as

summarized by the Court at trial.    Petitioner filed an answering

brief of one page (plus cover sheet), in which she describes her

loss of employment in 1997 and the challenge, since that time, of

living on savings in a declining securities market.    She states

that, in the spring of 2006, she took a large distribution from

her retirement account to pay down her credit card debt of over

$120,000.   She further states that, in the spring of this year,

she took another large distribution in order to rebuild an

investment portfolio and to prepare for upcoming expenses,

including exploring employment and business opportunities and a

possible home purchase.
                               - 4 -

                             Discussion

     At the conclusion of the trial, we instructed petitioner as

to her briefing rights; i.e., to respond to respondent’s brief

and to raise any additional arguments she wished to raise.     Our

instruction reflected the requirements of Rule 151(e), addressing

the form and content of briefs.   Petitioner agreed to proceed in

that fashion.   In her brief, petitioner has argued only the

hardship of complying with her tax obligations.   Therefore, we

deem petitioner to have abandoned other arguments supporting her

assignments of error.   See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308,

312-313 (2003) (“If an argument is not pursued on brief, we may

conclude that it has been abandoned.”).

     Among respondent’s proposed findings of fact are the

following (we paraphrase):   During the course of the proceedings

leading to the determination, petitioner submitted an offer-in-

compromise as an alternative to respondent’s collection action

(viz, respondent filed a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL)).    The

offer-in-compromise was accompanied by an Internal Revenue

Service Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage

Earners and Self-Employed Individuals.    The Form 433-A shows an

investment account balance of $388,597 and a Charles Schwab

account balance of $112,962.   The Appeals employee assigned to

petitioner’s case determined that petitioner had the ability to

pay her tax liabilities in full from accessible income in

checking accounts and by liquidating assets.   Petitioner makes no
                                 - 5 -

objection to those proposed findings, and we so find.       See Rule

151(e)(3).

     The NFTL shows an unpaid balance of tax for the years in

issue of $171,747.45.   From the Form 433-A, we can determine that

the sum of petitioner’s investment and Charles Schwab accounts

was $501,559.   Even taking into account liabilities of $186,788

that petitioner listed on the Form 433-A, petitioner had

sufficient assets that could be liquidated ($314,771 = $501,559 -

$186,788) that we agree with the Appeals employee’s conclusion

that petitioner had the ability to pay her tax liabilities in

full.   The Appeals employee did not abuse her discretion in

deciding that petitioner could pay her tax liabilities, nor, in

making the determination, did Appeals abuse its discretion.         See

Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000) (“where the

validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at

issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative

determination for abuse of discretion”).

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered
                                 for respondent.
