                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-150



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                TRACY MICHELLE KEE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 26677-07S.               Filed November 25, 2008.



     Tracy Michelle Kee, pro se.

     Chris J. Sheldon, for respondent.



     GERBER, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b),

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

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other


     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.
                               - 2 -

case.   Respondent moved for summary judgment, and petitioner was

given an opportunity to respond but failed to do so.   This case

arose under the provisions of section 6330, and the sole question

is whether there was an abuse of discretion when respondent

decided to proceed with collection.

                            Background

     Petitioner had a self-assessed outstanding and unpaid 1998

tax liability which respondent proposed to collect by means of a

levy.   Respondent notified petitioner of her right to a hearing,

and petitioner submitted a timely request for a hearing.    In her

request petitioner sought a hearing to pursue an offer-in-

compromise because of various physical and financial hardships.

No detail of the hardships or specific offer to compromise was

contained in her request.   Petitioner did not challenge the

underlying tax liability.

     Petitioner was offered a face-to-face or telephone hearing

which was scheduled to occur on June 19, 2007.   Petitioner,

however, failed to participate on June 19.   Petitioner was

offered a second opportunity by July 26, 2007.   Petitioner did

not respond to the second opportunity for a hearing and had no

other contact with respondent’s Appeals officer assigned to her

case.

     After respondent moved for summary judgment, the Court

ordered petitioner to respond, but she failed to do so.    The
                                - 3 -

Court gave petitioner an additional opportunity to present her

position in this matter by issuing a September 8, 2008, order to

appear at the September 22, 2008, trial session in Phoenix,

Arizona, and to show cause why respondent’s motion for summary

judgment should not be granted.    Petitioner failed to appear

and/or present any reasons why respondent should not be granted

summary judgment.

                             Discussion

     Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine

issue of material fact.    Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v.

Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th

Cir. 1994).   In this case, respondent set forth material

allegations in his answer establishing that petitioner was not

entitled to question the underlying tax liability and that there

was no abuse of discretion in deciding to proceed with collection

by means of levy.    After the time for filing a reply had expired,

respondent moved, under Rule 37(c), that the undenied allegations

in the answer be deemed admitted.     The Court issued a notice to

petitioner to file a reply or otherwise object, but petitioner

failed to file a reply or make any response to respondent’s

motion or the Court’s order.    Accordingly, respondent’s motion

was granted and the allegations in respondent’s answer were

deemed admitted.    See Rule 37(c).
                                - 4 -

     In the motion for summary judgment, respondent alleged that

all of the steps required of the settlement officer under section

6330 provisions had been met.   Because petitioner is precluded

from contesting the underlying liability, we review respondent’s

decision to proceed with collection under an abuse of discretion

standard.   See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).

     In her request for a hearing before respondent’s settlement

officer, petitioner set forth the following reason why respondent

could consider an offer-in-compromise:    “Due to medical illness--

Medical Leave--Medical Bills--Child care--No income due to my

illness”.   That is the only information that petitioner provided

to respondent, and consequently, it is the only information

available to the Court.   Respondent and this Court have given

petitioner ample opportunities to provide more specific

information and/or reasons why respondent should not be allowed

to proceed with collection or why she may be entitled to relief

by means of an offer-in-compromise.     Petitioner’s failure to come

forward, along with the fact that she is deemed to have admitted

respondent’s allegations in the answer, leave this Court with no

choice other than to grant respondent’s motion for summary

judgment.
                            - 5 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                            An appropriate order and decision

                    will be entered for respondent.
