                        T.C. Memo. 2002-185



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   GARY GOUGLER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9049-01L.                Filed July 31, 2002.



     Gary Gougler, pro se.

     Russell K. Stewart, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     COHEN, Judge:   Respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 with respect to petitioner’s Federal income taxes for

1991 and 1992.   Petitioner contends that he did not receive a

refund that was due to him for 1986.   Unless otherwise indicated,
                               - 2 -

all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect

for the years in issue.

     Petitioner resided in Robesonia, Pennsylvania, at the time

that his petition was filed.   In response to a notice of intent

to levy for 1991 and 1992, petitioner requested a hearing under

section 6330.

     On May 8, 2001, an Appeals officer sent to petitioner a

letter as follows:

     I scheduled the conference you requested on this case
     for * * * [June 13, 2001, 10 a.m.]. Please let me know
     within 10 days from the date of this letter whether
     this is convenient. If it is not, I will be glad to
     arrange another time.

     The conference will be informal. You may present
     facts, arguments, and legal authority to support your
     position. If you plan to introduce new evidence or
     information, send it to me at least 10 days before the
     conference. Statements of fact should be presented as
     affidavits or signed under penalties of perjury.

     You can authorize an attorney, certified public
     accountant, or person enrolled to practice before the
     Internal Revenue Service to represent you at the
     conference. Your authorization should be made on a
     Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Declaration of
     Representative), Form 8821 (Tax Information
     Authorization and Declaration of Representative), or a
     similar document.

     I hope our conference will resolve your case.    Call me
     if you have any questions or need additional
     information.

Petitioner did not appear at the time and place designated.     The

Appeals officer reviewed transcripts of petitioner’s account and

determined that requirements of applicable laws and
                                - 3 -

administrative procedures had been met and that the actions taken

or proposed by the revenue officer were appropriate under the

circumstances.    The notice of determination, sent June 29, 2001,

concluded:

     IRC sec. 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer
     consider whether any collection action balances the
     need for efficient collection of taxes with the
     legitimate concern that any collection action be no
     more intrusive than necessary. You did not appear at
     the hearing, nor contact me in any way, or present an
     acceptable alternative that is less intrusive than levy
     action. Therefore, Appeals has determined the levy
     action should be taken.

In his petition and at trial, petitioner attacked the credibility

of the Appeals officer, arguing that he attempted to contact the

Appeals officer with regard to the hearing.    Petitioner argues

that the hearing should not have been conducted at the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) office in Philadelphia, because petitioner

lives 75 miles away, and that the hearing should have been

conducted at a neutral place.   Petitioner complains about

computer-generated documents, forms not signed by individuals,

and other alleged Government abuses.    His main contention,

however, is that the IRS “stole” $2,000 from him in 1989.

     At the time of trial, petitioner presented a notice dated

June 26, 1995, with respect to his tax liability for 1986, as

support for his argument that he did not receive a refund that

was due to him.   The notice stated:
                                - 4 -

                         STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

     Account balance before this change

       Decrease in tax because of this change    $1,563.00CR
       Interest earned *                            180.74CR

       Amount to be refunded to you if
         you owe no other obligations            $1,743.74

          You may have already received this check. If not,
     please allow 2 weeks for it to be mailed to you, unless
     there are other matters pending which could postpone
     your refund.

          This is a result of your correspondence of
     Feb. 16, 1995.

          * Interest earned must be reported as income on
     your next income tax return.

Petitioner also presented a handwritten letter from a tax

examiner explaining application of the overpayment for 1986 as

follows:

     Dear Mr. Gougler:

     This is in reference to our telephone conversation
     concerning the above tax account. Our records show we
     have adjusted your 1986 account and the credit of
     $1,332.93 has been applied to your 1990 tax account.
     Therefore, there is no balance due for 1990 tax year.
     The remaining credit of $230.07 from 1986 has been
     applied to your 1991 tax account. As of June 21, 1995
     our records show a balance due of $1,375.79 for 1991
     tax year, and $973.76 for the tax year 1992. We are
     sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

At trial of this case, respondent presented transcripts of

petitioner’s accounts for 1991 and 1992.    The transcript for 1991

reflects application of a credit of $230.07 for an overpayment

from 1986, as well as application of withholding tax credits.
                                 - 5 -

     The only substantive issue that petitioner raised in this

proceeding is his entitlement to the refund for 1986.       The

records that he presented in support of his claim, however,

reflect that the refund was applied to his outstanding

liabilities.   The transcripts that were presented by respondent

are consistent with those records.

     There may have been a missed communication between

petitioner and the Appeals officer concerning the scheduled

hearing.   Petitioner’s demand about the location of the hearing,

however, was not reasonable.   See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.

329 (2000).    The Appeals officer’s determination was based on the

materials in petitioner’s file and the transcripts of his

account.   See sec. 301.6330-(1)(d)(2), Q&A D7, Proced. & Admin.

Regs.   At trial, petitioner was unable to identify any materials

submitted by him to the Appeals officer that were not duly

considered or that would have affected the result in this case.

     Under the circumstances, the absence of a face-to-face

hearing has not affected petitioner’s rights.       The case may be

decided on the present record.    See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117

T.C. 183, 189-190 (2001).   We conclude that respondent’s

determination that levy action should proceed is not erroneous.

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
