                       T.C. Memo. 2001-272



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               TIMOTHY VINCENT TIPP, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 541-01L.             Filed October 9, 2001.


     Timothy Vincent Tipp, pro se.

     Rollin G. Thorley and Susan B. Watson, for respondent.



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION


     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:    This matter is before

the Court on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State

a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted.    As explained in detail

below, we shall grant respondent’s motion.
                                - 2 -

Background

     On August 19, 1992, petitioner filed a Federal income tax

return for 1991 reporting a tax liability of $6,795.    Respondent

subsequently entered assessments against petitioner for 1991

reflecting the tax reported due, additions to tax for failing to

pay estimated taxes and failing to pay the amount reported due,

and interest.   Respondent applied overpayment credits from 1994,

1996, 1997, and 1998 to petitioner’s outstanding tax liability

for 1991.    In addition, petitioner made a number of payments

against his tax liability for 1991 during the period 1993 to

1998.

     On April 15, 1993, petitioner filed a Federal income tax

return for 1992 reporting a tax liability of $658.

     On May 2, 1995, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to

petitioner determining a deficiency of $2,160 in his Federal

income tax for 1992.    Petitioner did not file a petition for

redetermination with the Court challenging the notice of

deficiency.

     On October 12, 1999, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final

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

pursuant to section 6331.1   The notice stated that petitioner

owed taxes, penalties, and interest totaling $4,132.11 for the


     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -

taxable years 1991 and 1992, and that respondent was preparing to

collect this amount by levy.   The notice stated that petitioner

had 30 days to request a collection due process hearing with

respondent's Appeals Office.

     On November 10, 1999, petitioner filed a request for a

section 6330 hearing with respondent's Appeals Office.

On November 20, 2000, the Appeals Office conducted a hearing in

petitioner’s case.

     On December 12, 2000, respondent's Appeals Office issued to

petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection

Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (the determination

letter).   The determination letter stated that the Appeals Office

would proceed with collection with respect to the amount due for

1991, but that petitioner was not liable for any amount for 1992.

Respondent’s determination to abate the assessments entered

against petitioner for 1992 produced a credit of $50 for that

year which respondent applied to petitioner’s outstanding tax

liability for 1991.

     On January 9, 2001, petitioner filed with the Court an

imperfect Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Section 6320(b)

or 6330(d).2   On March 26, 2001, petitioner filed an amended

petition which included nothing but frivolous and groundless



     2
        At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Las Vegas, Nevada.
                                - 4 -

allegations that petitioner is not liable for taxes under the

Uniform Commercial Code.   In response, respondent filed a Motion

to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be

Granted.

     This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions

session held in Washington, D.C.   Counsel for respondent appeared

at the hearing and presented argument in support of respondent's

motion.    No appearance was made by or on behalf of petitioner at

the hearing.

     Following the hearing, respondent filed a supplement to his

motion to dismiss asserting that the collection review procedures

set forth in sections 6320 and 6330 are limited to lien and levy

actions and do not preclude respondent from applying an available

credit to a taxpayer’s outstanding tax liability.   Petitioner

filed an affidavit which stated that petitioner denied the

existence of various entities including the United States of

America, the United States Tax Court, and the Internal Revenue

Service.

Discussion

     In the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act

of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3401, 112 Stat. 685, 746, Congress

enacted new sections 6320 (pertaining to liens) and 6330

(pertaining to levies) to provide protections for taxpayers in

tax collection matters.    Section 6330 generally provides that the
                               - 5 -

Commissioner cannot proceed with the collection of taxes by way

of a levy on a taxpayer's property until the taxpayer has been

given notice of and the opportunity for an administrative review

of the matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing), and, if

dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative

determination in either the Tax Court or Federal District Court.

     Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that neither the existence

nor the amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested

at an Appeals Office hearing unless the taxpayer did not receive

a notice of deficiency for the taxes in question or did not

otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute such tax

liability.   Section 6330(d)(1)(A) provides that a taxpayer may

file a petition for review of the Commissioner's administrative

determination with the Tax Court.

     In Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000), we explained

that section 6330(c) provides for an Appeals Office hearing to

address collection issues such as spousal defenses, the

appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action,

and possible alternative means of collection.   The taxpayer in

Goza v. Commissioner, supra, had received a notice of deficiency,

yet failed to file a petition for redetermination with the Court.

When the taxpayer subsequently attempted to use the Court's

collection review procedure as a forum to assert frivolous and

groundless constitutional arguments against the Federal income
                               - 6 -

tax, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted.

     In the instant case, the record indicates that, following an

Appeals Office hearing, respondent determined that he would

proceed with collection against petitioner as to taxes due for

1991, and he would abate the assessments entered against

petitioner for 1992.   Respondent asserts that the assessment for

1991 is based on the return as filed and that the tax, penalty,

and interest due for 1991 is the balance after application of a

credit applied from 1992 to 1991.    Petitioner does not dispute

this assertion.   Respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency

to petitioner for 1991, a circumstance which normally would

permit petitioner to challenge his underlying tax liability for

1991 in this collection review proceeding.3   As was the case in

Goza v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner failed to raise a spousal

defense or challenge respondent's proposed levy by offering a

less intrusive means for collecting the taxes in either the

Appeals Office hearing or in his petition for review filed with

the Court.   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).   Moreover, as indicated, the



     3
        Petitioner failed to assert a valid claim for relief.
See Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60 (2001), holding that the
Court had jurisdiction in a collection review proceeding,
regardless of whether a deficiency was determined, where the
underlying liability related to Federal income tax. Given the
nature of petitioner’s frivolous claims, we conclude that
petitioner failed to assert a valid claim for relief as to the
underlying liability.
                                 - 7 -

amended petition contains nothing but frivolous and groundless

arguments relating to the Uniform Commercial Code.         Petitioner is

deemed to have conceded all issues not raised.       Rule 331(b)(4).

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the petition fails to

state a claim for relief, and we shall grant respondent’s motion

to dismiss, as supplemented.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              An appropriate order

                                         and decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
