                        T.C. Memo. 2000-163



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               ROLAND D. VAN FOSSEN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11269-99L.                      Filed May 18, 2000.



     Roland D. Van Fossen, pro se.

     Usha Ravi, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     GERBER, Judge:   Petitioner filed a petition seeking relief

from respondent’s decision to pursue collection activity.

Petitioner is seeking solely to challenge the underlying

deficiencies.   Respondent moved to dismiss this proceeding for

lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner is precluded

from questioning the underlying deficiency determinations because
                                - 2 -

he had received notice of deficiency prior to the assessment of

the liabilities in question.

                             Background

     Respondent issued statutory notices of deficiency to

petitioner on November 14, 1996, and April 16, 1998, determining

income tax deficiencies and penalties for the 1990, 1991, 1992,

and 1993 tax years.    Petitioner failed to petition this Court

with respect to either notice, and respondent assessed the income

tax deficiencies and penalties.    On March 2, 1999, respondent

sent petitioner a Final Notice--Notice of Intent To Levy and

Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.      On or about March 8, 1999,

respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, which was recorded

on March 16, 1999.    On March 11, 1999, respondent provided to

petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to

a Hearing Under IRC 6320.    On March 17, 1999, respondent received

petitioner’s timely Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.

     On May 20, 1999, respondent issued a Notice of Determination

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

approving the lien and levy actions and denying relief to

petitioner.   Petitioner filed a Petition for Lien or Levy Action

Under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d),1 seeking relief from

respondent’s collection activity.    Respondent moved to dismiss



     1
       Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as
amended and in effect for the period under consideration.
                               - 3 -

for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner is

precluded, under section 6330(c)(2)(B), from seeking relief

because he received statutory notices of deficiency with respect

to the taxable periods under consideration.

                            Discussion

     Respondent seeks to have this matter dismissed, contending

that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because

petitioner, under section 6330(c)(2)(B), is precluded from

challenging the underlying tax liability during the

administrative proceeding before the Appeals Office.   We note

that this procedural question is the same for lien or levy

proceedings because section 6320(c), in pertinent part, causes

section 6330(c) and (d) to apply in connection with the conduct

of hearings concerning relief sought under section 6320.

     The question of our jurisdiction in this type of situation

was recently addressed in Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___

(2000).   In that case, we held that we have jurisdiction to

review respondent’s administrative determinations in lien and

levy matters involving circumstances similar to those that we

consider in this proceeding.   See id. at ___ (slip op. at 10-11).

As in Goza, the only grounds raised by petitioner here concern

the underlying tax liabilities.   In that regard, petitioner

contends that the underlying determinations are fraudulent and

that respondent had no authority to make the assessments.    These
                                - 4 -

grounds are insufficient to challenge respondent’s intent to levy

and the filing of notices of lien.

     Section 6330(c)(2)(A) permits taxpayers to raise any

relevant issue, including spousal defenses to collection,

challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended

collection action, and offers of alternative means of collection.

Petitioner does not seek that type of relief permitted and is

prohibited from questioning the underlying deficiencies because

of the issuance and receipt of the prior notices of deficiency

for the same taxable years.   See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

     Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction will be denied, and petitioner’s action will be

dismissed for petitioner’s failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

     To reflect the forgoing,


                                An appropriate order and decision

                         will be entered.
