                   T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-21



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



SHIRLEY DEAN POWERS, a.k.a. SHIRLEY POWERS GILCHRIST, Petitioner
         v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 5057-04S.             Filed February 23, 2005.


      Shirley Dean Powers, a.k.a. Shirley Powers Gilchrist, pro
se.

      Innessa Glazman Molot, for respondent.



      PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463.1     The

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

this opinion should not be cited as authority.




      1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination

Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330

(notice of determination) for unpaid Federal income tax and

related liabilities for 1996 and 1997.2   The notice of

determination asserts that the unpaid balance is $4,249.07.

     The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his

discretion by rejecting petitioner’s offer in compromise (OIC).

Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.   Petitioner resided in Cheverly, Maryland, at the time the

petition was filed.

     Petitioner filed a 1996 Federal income tax return on June

17, 1997, and timely filed a 1997 Federal income tax return on or

before April 15, 1998.   The 1996 and 1997 returns each reflected

tax due.   There was no remittance with either of the returns.

Respondent assessed the taxes due for 1996 and 1997.

     Respondent issued petitioner a notice of intent to levy for

the 1993 through 1997 taxable years.   Petitioner submitted a

timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.

Petitioner also submitted an OIC.   The Appeals officer rejected

petitioner’s OIC, noting that petitioner’s offered amount of $100

for the liabilities outstanding for the tax years 1993 through



     2
       Respondent, in the notice of determination, conceded the
outstanding tax liabilities for 1993, 1994, and 1995.
                                - 3 -

1997 was inadequate.    The Appeals officer concluded that

petitioner’s monthly disposable income was $463.39 and that the

monthly disposable income for the next 48 months totaled

$22,242.72.   After conceding the liabilities for 1993, 1994, and

1995 the Appeals officer concluded that the offer of $100 was

“paltry” considering the outstanding debt of $4,249.07 for 1996

and 1997.

     On February 24, 2004, the Appeals Office issued the notice

of determination sustaining its determination to proceed with

collection of the outstanding liabilities for the 1996 and 1997

taxable years.    As indicated, the notice of determination also

indicated that collection action would not be sustained with

respect to the outstanding tax liabilities for 1993, 1994, and

1995, and that said liabilities should be abated.

Discussion

     This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the

Commissioner’s administrative determinations.    Sec. 6330(d).

Where, as here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is

not at issue, we review the determination for abuse of

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

v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000).    In so doing, we do

not conduct an independent review of what would be an acceptable

offer in compromise.    Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2003-346.    We review only whether the Appeals officer’s refusal
                                - 4 -

to accept petitioner’s OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without

sound basis in fact or law.    See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112

T.C. 19, 23 (1999).

     Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to a hearing in

which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the

unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection

alternatives such as an offer in compromise.    Sec. 6330(b) and

(c)(2).   Petitioner appears to contend that the Appeals officer

should have conceded the tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997,

consistent with his concession of the tax liabilities for 1993,

1994, and 1995.   Petitioner does not otherwise present any

argument that the Appeals officer’s rejection of the OIC was an

abuse of discretion.

     The Appeals officer conceded petitioner’s tax liabilities

for 1993, 1994, and 1995 because the IRS had failed to maintain

the administrative files and the IRS records were insufficient to

pursue collection.    However, this was not the situation with

respect to 1996 and 1997.    Petitioner’s position simply makes no

sense given the disparate circumstances.    Respondent’s rejection

of the OIC was based on an analysis of petitioner’s financial

information.   On the basis of the information considered by the

Appeals officer, we cannot conclude that rejection of

petitioner’s OIC was an abuse of discretion.    See Van Vlaenderen

v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
                               - 5 -

318; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2002-129.   Petitioner’s OIC of $100 was not based on any

analysis.   Petitioner failed to provide information or explain

how she arrived at her conclusions.     Indeed, when the Court asked

petitioner to explain why she disagreed with respondent’s

analysis of her OIC, she failed to provide an adequate

explanation.   We are satisfied that respondent did not abuse his

discretion in making his determination.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To give effect to the foregoing,


                                       An appropriate decision will

                               be entered for respondent.
