                        T.C. Memo. 2008-173



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               CHARLES M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 3890-07L.                Filed July 22, 2008.



     Charles M. Williams, pro se.

     Terry Serena, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case is before the Court on respon-

dent’s motion for summary judgment and for imposition of sanc-

tions under section 66731 (respondent’s motion).   We shall grant



     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

respondent’s motion insofar as it seeks summary judgment for

respondent.

                            Background

     The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the

following.

     Petitioner’s address shown in the petition in this case was

in Mansfield, Ohio.

     On March 20, 2006, petitioner and his spouse, Catherine

Williams (Ms. Williams),2 filed a Federal income tax (tax) return

(return) for their taxable year 2000 (2000 return).    In that

return, petitioner showed total tax of $11,377 and tax due of

$4,501.   When petitioner filed his 2000 return, he did not pay

the tax due shown in that return.

     On May 8, 2006, respondent assessed the total tax shown in

petitioner’s 2000 return, additions to tax under sections

6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of $1,012.72, $1,125.25, and

$111.22, respectively, and interest as provided by law of

$1,847.65 for his taxable year 2000.     (We shall refer to any

unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable year

2000, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after May 8,

2006, as petitioner’s unpaid 2000 liability.)




     2
      Ms. Williams is not a petitioner in the instant case.
Hereinafter, we shall refer only to petitioner.
                                - 3 -

       On May 8, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of

balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid 2000 liability.

       On February 23, 2006, petitioner filed a return for his

taxable year 2001 (2001 return).    In that return, petitioner

showed total tax of $13,351 and tax due of that amount.    When

petitioner filed his 2001 return, he did not pay the tax due

shown in that return.

       On April 17, 2006, respondent assessed the total tax shown

in petitioner’s 2001 return, additions to tax under section

6651(a)(1) and (2) of $3,003.97 and $3,270.99, respectively, and

interest as provided by law of $3,938.72 for his taxable year

2001.    (We shall refer to any unpaid assessed amounts with

respect to petitioner’s taxable year 2001, as well as interest as

provided by law accrued after April 17, 2006, as petitioner’s

unpaid 2001 liability.)

       On April 17, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid 2001 liabil-

ity.

       On February 23, 2006, petitioner filed a return for his

taxable year 2003 (2003 return).    In that return, petitioner

showed total tax of $12,801 and tax due of $12,329.    When peti-

tioner filed his 2003 return, he did not pay the tax due shown in

that return.
                                - 4 -

       On April 3, 2006, respondent assessed the total tax shown in

petitioner’s 2003 return, additions to tax under sections

6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of $2,774.02, $1,479.48, and

$316.74, respectively, and interest as provided by law of

$1,771.11 for his taxable year 2003.    (We shall refer to any

unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable year

2003, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after April

3, 2006, as petitioner’s unpaid 2003 liability.)

       On April 3, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid 2003 liabil-

ity.

       On February 23, 2006, petitioner filed a return for his

taxable year 2004 (2004 return).    In that return, petitioner

showed total tax of $16,456 and tax due of that amount.    When

petitioner filed his 2004 return, he did not pay the tax due

shown in that return.

       On March 27, 2006, respondent assessed the total tax shown

in petitioner’s 2004 return, additions to tax under sections

6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of $3,702.60, $987.36, and

$471.57, respectively, and interest as provided by law of

$1,283.98 for his taxable year 2004.    (We shall refer to any

unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable year

2004, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after March

27, 2006, as petitioner’s unpaid 2004 liability.)
                                - 5 -

       On March 27, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid 2004 liabil-

ity.

       Petitioner timely filed a return for his taxable year 2005

(2005 return).    In that return, petitioner showed total tax of

$11,399 and tax due of $9,756.3   When petitioner filed his 2005

return, he did not pay the tax due shown in that return.

       On March 27, 2006, respondent assessed the total tax shown

in petitioner’s 2005 return and an addition to tax under section

6654(a) of $384.01.    (We shall refer to any unpaid assessed

amounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable year 2005, as well

as interest as provided by law accrued after March 27, 2006, as

petitioner’s unpaid 2005 liability.)

       On March 27, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid 2005 liabil-

ity.

       On June 21, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing under IRC

6320 (notice of tax lien) with respect to petitioner’s unpaid

2000 liability, petitioner’s unpaid 2001 liability, petitioner’s


       3
      The record does not contain the page of petitioner’s 2005
return that shows the amount of tax due. However, Form 4340,
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS
(Form 4340), for petitioner’s taxable year 2005 indicates that
$1,643 of the total tax shown in that return had been withheld.
Thus, the amount of petitioner’s tax for that year shown due in
petitioner’s 2005 return was $9,756.
                               - 6 -

unpaid 2003 liability, petitioner’s unpaid 2004 liability, and

petitioner’s unpaid 2005 liability.    (We shall refer collectively

to those liabilities as petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 2000,

2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.)

     On July 10, 2006, petitioner timely submitted to respondent

Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (peti-

tioner’s Form 12153), with respect to the notice of tax lien.     In

that form, petitioner indicated his disagreement with the notice

of tax lien and requested a hearing with respondent’s Appeals

Office (Appeals Office).4   In petitioner’s Form 12153, petitioner

stated in pertinent part:   “I request collection alternatives

including OIC and payment schedule.”   Petitioner’s Form 12153

also contained certain statements, contentions, arguments, and/or

requests that the Court finds to be frivolous, groundless, and/or

irrelevant.

     By letter dated September 12, 2006, the Appeals Office

acknowledged receipt of petitioner’s Form 12153.

     On or about September 18, 2006, petitioner submitted to

respondent Form 656, Offer in Compromise (Form 656).   Except for

the names, address, and Social Security numbers of petitioner and

his spouse and the amount of their offer-in-compromise, peti-



     4
      In petitioner’s Form 12153, petitioner also indicated his
disagreement with a “Notice of Levy/Seizure”. The record does
not establish that respondent issued any such notice to peti-
tioner.
                                - 7 -

tioner did not provide any of the information requested in Form

656.

       On or about September 18, 2006, petitioner also submitted to

respondent Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage

Earners and Self-Employed Individuals (Form 433-A).    Except for

the names, address, telephone number, marital status, and birth

dates of petitioner and his spouse and the occupation and place

of employment of petitioner,5 petitioner did not provide any of

the information requested in Form 433-A.

       Petitioner attached to petitioner’s Form 656 and peti-

tioner’s Form 433-A copies of petitioner’s “STATEMENT OF EARNINGS

and DEDUCTIONS” for the weekly pay periods ended February 5

through April 23, 2006.

       Form 433-A asked petitioner to list different types of

assets that he owned.    Petitioner did not list any such assets in

that form.    In reviewing certain public records, a settlement

officer with the Appeals Office who was assigned petitioner’s

Form 12153 (settlement officer) concluded that petitioner may

have owned certain real property and four automobiles.




       5
      In petitioner’s Form 433-A, petitioner indicated that his
spouse was a “Home maker [sic]”. In petitioner’s Form 433-A,
petitioner showed as his occupation “Painter - Carpentar [sic]”.
Petitioner, however, attached to that form and petitioner’s Form
656 a document in which he stated that he was “no longer work-
ing.”
                                 - 8 -

     The settlement officer sent petitioner a letter dated

December 16, 2006 (settlement officer’s December 16, 2006 let-

ter).   That letter stated in pertinent part:

     I have scheduled a telephone conference call for you on
     January 25, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. CST. I will promptly
     call your Power of Attorney at the date and time indi-
     cated above. This call will be your primary opportu-
     nity to discuss with me the reasons you disagree with
     the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives to
     the collection action. If this time is not convenient
     for you, or you would prefer your conference to be held
     by correspondence, please let me know within fourteen
     (14) days from the date of this letter.

        *         *       *       *       *       *       *

     The issues you raise in your CDP Request are those that
     Courts have determined are frivolous or Appeals does
     not consider.

     Please be advised that Appeals does not provide a face-
     to-face conference if the only items you wish to dis-
     cuss are those:

            1.   Courts have determined are frivolous * * *.

            2.   Appeals does not consider irrelevant issues,
                 such as moral, religious, political,
                 constitutional, conscientious, or similar
                 grounds.

     You will be allowed a face-to-face conference on any
     non-frivolous issue; however you will need to provide
     the non-frivolous issue in writing or by calling me
     within 14 days from the date of this letter before a
     face-to-face conference will be scheduled.

        *         *       *       *       *       *       *

     For me to consider alternative collection methods such
     as an installment agreement or offer in compromise, you
     must provide any items listed below. In addition, you
     must have filed all federal tax returns required to be
     filed.
                         - 9 -

The items to be provided are:

      •   Proof that estimated tax payments are paid in
          full (for an Offer in Compromise); delinquent
          estimated tax payments may be included in
          installment agreement payments.

          Appeals cannot approve an installment agree-
          ment or accept an offer-in-compromise unless
          all required estimated tax payments for the
          current year’s income tax liability have been
          made. If you wish to pursue one of these
          alternatives during the CDP hearing process,
          you must arrange for the payment of any re-
          quired estimated tax payments. Delinquent
          estimated tax payments can be included in an
          installment agreement. However, the esti-
          mated tax payments must be paid in full be-
          fore an offer-in-compromise can be accepted.
          Our records indicate that you have not made
          estimated tax payments for the following
          period(s): December 31, 2006. You must make
          an estimated tax payment of $8,780.00 to your
          local IRS office and submit a copy of your
          receipt, or provide other verification that
          your estimated tax payments are sufficient so
          far this tax year. This documentation must
          be received no later than 1/1/07 for full
          consideration of your offer. If it is not
          timely received the offer will be rejected.

      •   All items noted on the attached ‘Appeals
          Document Request’

      •   Relevant non-frivolous issues

Please send me the items listed or checked above within
14 days * * * from the date of this letter. I cannot
consider collection alternatives at your conference nor
can I consider alternatives during the hearing process
without the information requested above. * * *

  *       *       *       *       *       *          *

Before you decide whether to petition a notice of
determination, you should know that the Tax Court is
empowered to impose monetary sanctions up to $25,000
for instituting or maintaining an action before it
                              - 10 -

     primarily for delay or for taking a position that is
     frivolous or groundless [Pierson v. Commissioner, 115
     T.C. 576 (2000); Forbes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo[.]
     2006-10 ($20,000 penalty imposed); Aston v. Commis-
     sioner, T.C. Memo[.] 2003-128 ($25,000 penalty im-
     posed)].

     The settlement officer attached to the settlement officer’s

December 16, 2006 letter a document entitled “APPEALS DOCUMENT

REQUEST”.   That document stated in pertinent part:

     Please provide the following:

     1. Income: Please provide proof of gross earnings and
     deductions for the past three months from each employer
     * * *

     2. Banking: Please include your current bank state-
     ments * * * for all personal and business accounts for
     the past three CONSECUTIVE months. * * *

     3. Investments: Please provide a current * * * ac-
     count balance statement. * * *

     4. Life insurance: Please provide a statement from
     your life insurance companies indicating the type of
     insurance, cash/loan value amounts. * * *

     5. Vehicles: Please include your current statement
     from your lender with the monthly payment amount and
     current balance of the loan for each vehicle purchased
     or leased. * * *

     6. Real Estate: Please include your current statement
     from lender with monthly payment amount and current
     balance for each piece of real estate owned.

     THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE
     WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THIS LETTER. * * *

     Petitioner did not make the estimated tax payments with

respect to his taxable year 2006, as requested in the settlement

officer’s December 16, 2006 letter.    Nor did petitioner submit to
                              - 11 -

the settlement officer the information requested in that letter.

Instead, on December 27, 2006, in response to the settlement

officer’s December 16, 2006 letter, petitioner sent to the

settlement officer a letter (petitioner’s December 27, 2006

letter) that stated in pertinent part:

     If any of my correspondence contained frivolous argu-
     ments, I now withdraw them.

     Attached is my revised CDPH   Request form 12153 dated
     December, 26 2006 [sic]. I    recall and replace the
     previous CDPH Request, form   12153, filed on August
     2006, which the IRS did not   like.

     Your letter also stated that I would be allowed a face-
     to-face hearing on any non-frivolous issue. Therefore,
     under IRS sections 6320/6330, I am asking for a face-
     to-face hearing for following non-frivolous grounds:

     (1) Collection Alternatives including offer in compro-
     mise, payment schedule, CNC (Currently Not Collect-
     able), etc.

     (2) Procedural Irregularities

     (3) Issues as requested in the new CDPH form 12153
     being submitted herewith

     (4) Challenges to the appropriateness of the collection
     action.

     (5) Spousal relief

     (6) liability of frivolous penalty

     Petitioner enclosed with petitioner’s December 27, 2006

letter a document entitled “Request for a Collection Due Process

Hearing” (petitioner’s second request for a collection due

process hearing).   That document stated in pertinent part:    “I

request collection alternatives including OIC and payment sched-
                                - 12 -

ule.”    Petitioner’s second request for a collection due process

hearing also contained certain statements, contentions, argu-

ments, and/or requests that the Court finds to be frivolous,

groundless, and/or irrelevant.

     On February 6, 2007, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner

a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under

section 6320 and/or section 6330 (notice of determination) with

respect to petitioner’s taxable years 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and

2005.     That notice stated in pertinent part:

     The Office of Appeals has determined not to grant you
     relief under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6320 from
     the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL)
     covering your December 31, 2000, December 31, 2001,
     December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004 and December 31,
     2005 tax liabilities. You have not provided any spe-
     cific information or documents which would indicate
     that withdrawal of the NFTL would facilitate the col-
     lection of the tax liability and there is no indication
     that withdrawal of the lien would be in the govern-
     ment’s best interest.

     Before you decide whether to petition this notice of
     determination, you should know that the Tax Court is
     empowered to impose monetary sanctions up to $25,000
     for instituting or maintaining an action before it
     primarily for delay or for taking a position that is
     frivolous or groundless [Pierson v. Commissioner, 115
     T.C. No. 39 (2000)]. It is our view that the positions
     you have taken have no merit and are groundless.

The notice of determination included an attachment that stated in

pertinent part:

                       SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION

        You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearing
        under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6320 in reference
        to a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing (NFTL).
                        - 13 -


You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearing
under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section (§) [sic]
6330 in reference to a Notice of Levy/Seizure.

Your request for a CDP Hearing was timely since it was
received within the 30-day time period as set in the
statute.

A notice of intent to levy has not been filed.

The Office of Appeals determination is that relief is
not granted from the NFTL. You did not qualify for
withdrawal of the notice as allowed for in IRC 6323(j).

                   BRIEF BACKGROUND

You are appealing the 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005
tax years. The liabilities are due to insufficient
withholdings.

The Settlement Officer sent you a letter dated December
16, 2006 advising you of a telephonic conference for
January 25, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. CST. The letter asked
you to submit the following 14 days from the date of
the letter: estimated tax payment in the amount of
$8,780.00 (since an offer in compromise was submitted),
relevant non-frivolous issues and all items noted on
the Appeals Document Request. You submitted correspon-
dence which reiterated frivolous arguments and not the
requested items.

This letter also advised of your option for a face to
face conference on any non-frivolous issue. You were
to provide the Settlement Officer within 14 days of the
letter a statement detailing your non-frivolous issues.
Since your response reiterated frivolous arguments the
face to face conference was denied.

               DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

IRC § 6320 & § 6330 taken together require the Service
to:

     a) Verify at the Hearing that the requirements of
        legal and administrative procedures have been
        met;
                       - 14 -

    b) Adequately review specific issues raised by a
       taxpayer at a Hearing, and;

    c) Balance the needs of the Service to efficiently
       collect the tax with the taxpayer’s expectation
       that the proposed actions be no more intrusive
       than necessary.

              Verification of legal and
       administrative procedural requirements:

N   The assessment was made on the applicable Due
    Process Notice periods per IRC § 6201.

N   The Notice and Demand for payment letter was
    mailed to your last known address within 60 days
    of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303.

N   There was a balance due when the Collection Due
    Process notice was issued per IRC § 6322 and
    § 6331(a). There remains an amount due and owing.

N   IRC §6320 does, in fact, provide for a Collection
    Due Process Hearing after a Notice of Federal Tax
    Lien has been filed. Your notification of this
    action was handled in accordance with the require-
    ments of the Code and Manual provisions relating
    to the filing of a Federal Tax Lien.

N   You were given the opportunity to raise any rele-
    vant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the
    proposed levy action at the Hearing in accordance
    with IRC § 6330(c).

N   The Settlement Officer requested and reviewed
    detailed computer transcripts of each of the years
    in question.

N   The Settlement Officer was provided various
    documents from the administrative collection
    files, and reviewed the provided information.

N   It appears that the Service met the requirements
    of all applicable laws, regulations and adminis-
    trative procedures during the assessment and col-
    lection phases of this investigation.
                          - 15 -

  N   The Settlement Officer does not recall any
      prohibited prior involvement with these tax peri-
      ods. The Appeals employee who was assigned to
      your case has had no prior involvement, either in
      a previous Appeals hearing or in Compliance activ-
      ities, with you concerning the applicable tax
      periods before this CDP case.

              Issues raised by the taxpayer:

Issue:

In your request for a hearing you present frivolous
arguments. You also state that you would like consid-
eration for an offer in compromise.

Response:

Since non-frivolous issues were not presented the
conference was conducted by mail.

IRC section 6321 provides a statutory lien when a
taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay a tax liability
after notice and demand. To be valid against third
parties except other governmental entities, the notice
of the lien must be filed in the proper place for
filing per IRC section 6323(a) and (f).

The notice and demand as required by IRC section 6321
for the balance owed was issued. The 30-day notice
required under IRC section 6331(d) was sent certified.
The RRA’98 Act Section 3421, which requires that IRS
employees and managers follow a review and approval
process for a lien, was followed. The law imposes no
further requirements prior to the filing of the NFTL.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights II signed into law on July
30, 1996 gives the Service either authority to withdraw
a NFTL under the following circumstances:

      "   The filing of the notice was premature or
          otherwise not in accordance with the Service’s
          administrative procedures;

      "   The taxpayer entered into an agreement under
          Section 6159 to satisfy the tax liability for
          which the lien was imposed by means of
          installment payments, unless such agreement
                         - 16 -

         provides otherwise,

     "   Withdrawal of such notice will facilitate the
         collection of the tax liability, or

     "   With the consent of the taxpayer or the
         Taxpayer Advocate, the withdrawal of such
         notice would be in the best interest of the
         taxpayer (as determined by the Taxpayer
         Advocate) and the United States.

You have not provided any specific information or
documents which would indicate that withdrawal of the
NFTL would facilitate the collection of the tax liabil-
ity and there is no indication that withdrawal of the
lien would be in the government’s best interest.

The underlying liability issue was not raised.

The offer in compromise submitted could not be consid-
ered since you did not remain in compliance. The
requested estimated tax payment of $8,780.00 was not
submitted as requested.

     •   No other issues were raised.

     Balancing the need for efficient collection
      with taxpayer concerns that the collection
          be no more intrusive than necessary:

The Office of Appeals has considered the issues raised,
and balanced the proposed collection action with the
legitimate concern that such action be no more intru-
sive than necessary as required by IRC (§) [sic]
6330(c)(3).

Appeals determination is that relief is not granted
from the NFTL. You do not qualify for withdrawal of
the notice as allowed for in IRC 6323(j).

Before you decide whether to petition this notice of
determination, you should know that the Tax Court is
empowered to impose monetary sanctions up to $25,000
for instituting or maintaining an action before it
primarily for delay or for taking a position that is
frivolous or groundless [Pierson v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. No. 39 (2000)]. It is our view that the positions
you have taken have no merit and are groundless.
                              - 17 -


     On February 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order (Court’s

February 4, 2008 Order) in which, inter alia, the Court indi-

cated:   “the Court believes that petitioner may intend to advance

frivolous and/or groundless contentions and/or arguments in this

case.”   In the Court’s February 4, 2008 Order, the Court reminded

petitioner about section 6673(a)(1) and admonished him that, in

the event that he advanced frivolous and/or groundless state-

ments, contentions, and/or arguments, the Court would impose a

penalty not in excess of $25,000 on him under that section.

                            Discussion

     The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no

genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered 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 are no genuine issues of material fact

regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.

     In petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion (peti-

tioner’s response), petitioner does not dispute the existence or

the respective amounts of petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for

2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.   Where the validity of the

underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, as is

the case here for each of the taxable years 2000, 2001, 2003,

2004, and 2005, the Court will review the determination of the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue for abuse of discretion.    See
                              - 18 -

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

sioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).

     In petitioner’s response, petitioner makes a number of

statements that we do not find to be relevant and material in

resolving respondent’s motion.6       We shall not address any of

those statements.

     In petitioner’s response, petitioner also advances several

arguments in support of his position that the Court should deny

respondent’s motion.   We turn first to petitioner’s argument in

petitioner’s response that he “is entitled to see proof that he



     6
      For example, petitioner makes the following statements in
petitioner’s response: “Petitioner is a pro se litigant with
very little education and no computer skills. Taxpayer is lost
in the maze of rules and case law involved in a case like this.
District counsel with overwhelming resources is attempting to
take advantage of taxpayer with very few resources.” As a
further example of petitioner’s irrelevant and immaterial state-
ments, petitioner makes the following statements in petitioner’s
response:

     Taxpayer should be commended for using package plead-
     ings which expedite this case and foster judicial
     economy.

         *     *        *         *         *       *       *

     * * * The taxpayer’s pleadings from a public domain
     website have been used in hundreds of cases in tax
     court and not once has any judge found them “frivolous
     and not grounded in law or fact.” * * *

As a final example, petitioner makes the following statements in
petitioner’s response: “District Counsel is a bully attempting
to frighten hapless taxpayer with no resources. * * * Petitioner
is retired, elderly and in poor health. District Counsel’s false
accusations upset him.”
                              - 19 -

received the Notice of Deficiency plus the Notice and Demand

Letter.”   With respect to petitioner’s argument that he “is

entitled to see proof that he received the Notice of Deficiency”,

the record establishes that each of petitioner’s unpaid liabili-

ties for 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005 consists of the amount

of tax due that petitioner showed in his return for each such

year, as well as any additions to tax and interest as provided by

law for each such year.   None of those liabilities arose from a

deficiency that respondent determined in a notice of deficiency.

We reject petitioner’s argument that he “is entitled to see proof

that he received the Notice of Deficiency”.

     With respect to petitioner’s argument that he “is entitled

to see proof that he received * * * the Notice and Demand Let-

ter”, Form 4340 for each of petitioner’s taxable years 2000,

2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005 shows that respondent issued to

petitioner a notice of balance due on the same date on which

respondent assessed petitioner’s tax, as well as any additions to

tax and interest as provided by law, for each such year.7    Peti-

tioner does not deny that he received a notice of balance due

with respect to each of those years.   The settlement officer

relied on the respective Forms 4340 in verifying, as required by

section 6330(c)(1), that respondent had issued to petitioner


     7
      A notice of balance due constitutes the notice and demand
for payment under sec. 6303(a). Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
252, 262-263 (2002).
                              - 20 -

notices of balance due with respect to petitioner’s unpaid

liabilities for 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.   We reject

petitioner’s argument that he “is entitled to see proof that he

received * * * the Notice and Demand Letter.”

     In asserting that he “is entitled to see proof that he

received * * * the Notice and Demand Letter”, petitioner appears

to be requesting a copy of the verification upon which the

settlement officer relied in verifying under section 6330(c)(1)

that respondent had issued to petitioner a notice of balance due

with respect to each of petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 2000,

2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.   Section 6330(c)(1) did not require

the settlement officer to provide petitioner with a copy of the

verification upon which the settlement officer relied.   See Craig

v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 262 (2002).   We have rejected as

frivolous and/or groundless a request for a copy of any such

verification.8

     We turn next to petitioner’s principal argument in peti-

tioner’s response, namely, he “is entitled to a face-to-face

conference” with the Appeals Office.   In support of that argu-

ment, petitioner contends that he “made many offers of [a]

collections alternative during the appeal process.”   As we

understand it, petitioner is arguing that he is entitled to a

face-to-face hearing with the Appeals Office in order to discuss


     8
      See, e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46.
                               - 21 -

certain collection alternatives.   We reject petitioner’s argu-

ment.    The settlement officer gave petitioner an opportunity to

comply with respondent’s rules for considering a collection

alternative, but petitioner failed to comply with those rules.9

Specifically, in the settlement officer’s December 16, 2006

letter, the settlement officer informed petitioner that she could

not “consider alternative collection methods such as an install-

ment agreement or offer in compromise” unless (1) “all required

estimated tax payments for the current year’s income tax liabil-

ity have been made” and (2) petitioner submitted certain finan-

cial information to the settlement officer within 14 days from

the date of that letter.    Petitioner did not make the estimated

tax payments with respect to his taxable year 2006, as requested

in the settlement officer’s December 16, 2006 letter.    Nor did

petitioner submit to the settlement officer the financial infor-

mation that she requested in that letter.    Instead, in response

to the settlement officer’s December 16, 2006 letter, petitioner



     9
      As pertinent here, pt. 5.8.7.2.2.1(1) of the Internal
Revenue Manual (IRM) (Sept. 1, 2005) provides that

     A processable offer may be returned when the investiga-
     tion reveals the taxpayer does not have sufficient
     estimated tax paid or income tax withheld to cover the
     current year estimated tax due.

Moreover, pt. 5.14.1.5.1(19) of the IRM (July 12, 2005) provides
that “Compliance with filing, paying estimated taxes, and federal
tax deposits must be current from the date the installment
agreement begins.”
                               - 22 -

sent to the settlement officer petitioner’s December 27, 2006

letter in which he stated, as he had in petitioner’s Form 12153,

that he was requesting collection alternatives.

        Except for petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to a

face-to-face hearing with the Appeals Office in order to discuss

certain collection alternatives, which we have rejected, peti-

tioner does not indicate what other matters, if any, he would

raise at a face-to-face hearing with the Appeals Office.    We

conclude that it is not necessary and will not be productive to

remand this case to the Appeals Office for a face-to-face hear-

ing.    See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001).

       Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in

making the determinations in the notice of determination with

respect to petitioner’s taxable years 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and

2005.

       In respondent’s motion, respondent requests that the Court

require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant

to section 6673(a)(1).    Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court

to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in an

amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court,

inter alia, that a proceeding before it was instituted or main-

tained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or that the
                               - 23 -

taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or ground-

less, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).

     We believe that petitioner instituted and maintained the

instant case primarily for delay.    We also believe that if

permitted to do so, petitioner would advance a position in this

case that is frivolous and/or groundless.    Nonetheless, we shall

not impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner.       We

caution him that he may be subject to such a penalty if in the

future he institutes or maintains a proceeding in this Court

primarily for delay and/or his position in any such proceeding is

frivolous or groundless.    See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.

403, 409-413 (1984); White v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1126, 1135-

1136 (1979).

     We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, conten-

tions, arguments, and requests that are not discussed herein,

and, to the extent we have not found them to be frivolous and/or

groundless, we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

     On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s motion

insofar as it seeks summary judgment for respondent.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                      An appropriate order and

                                 decision for respondent will be

                                 entered.
