                        T.C. Memo. 2001-107



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                HARRY JAMES INMAN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 13390-99L.                      Filed May 4, 2001.



     Harry James Inman, pro se.

     Edwina L. Charlemagne, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     COLVIN, Judge:   Respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 in which respondent determined that a levy on

petitioner’s wages was appropriate to satisfy petitioner's

outstanding liabilities for Federal income taxes, additions to
                                        - 2 -

tax, interest, and fees.         On August 31, 1999, those amounts were

as follows:

               Unpaid         Unpaid Additions to Tax and Interest
Year          Income Tax   Sec. 6651(a)(1)      Sec. 6651(a)(2)    Interest

1985          $2,308.83     $1,153.80            $1,282.00        $14,998.10

1986           1,765.00         419.63              466.25          4,905.82

1987           1,019.00         229.28              254.75          2,334.63

1992             155.61         453.60              343.04          1,094.82

1994           1,714.00         385.65              428.50            997.72

1995           2,005.00           ---               501.25            664.67

   Total       8,967.44       2,641.96            3,275.79         24,995.76

Respondent also assessed $18 for a lien fee for 1992.

       We must decide the following issues:

       1.    Whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section

6320.       We hold that he is not.

       2.    Whether petitioner is liable for the amounts determined

by respondent (including additions to tax and interest) for the

years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995.             We hold that he

is.

       3.    Whether respondent may proceed with levy action.         We

hold that respondent may.

       Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.           Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 3 -

                           FINDINGS OF FACT1

     Petitioner lived in Greensboro, North Carolina, when he

filed the petition in this case.     Petitioner is a civilian

employee of the Defense Department at Camp Lejeune.     He works

full time as a pipe fitter for about $20 per hour.

     Petitioner filed his income tax returns for 1985 on April

19, 1996, for 1986 on March 27, 1996, for 1987 on April 19, 1996,

for 1992 on April 23, 1995, and for 1994 on March 14, 1996.     He

timely filed his 1995 tax return.

     Respondent issued a notice of Federal tax lien on September

3, 1996, for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995, relating to

income tax liabilities that petitioner reported on his return,

less withholding credits and other payments, and including

additions to tax for failure to timely file returns and pay tax,

lien fees, and interest.

     Respondent issued a Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy

and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, which petitioner received

on February 17, 1999.   See secs. 6330 and 6331.    Petitioner filed

a request for a hearing.    In it, he stated that “every time I

talk to someone I get a different set of figures”, and that no



     1
        Petitioner refused before and at trial to stipulate facts
not fairly in dispute as required by Rule 91, including whether
copies of income tax returns with his name and signature for
1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995 were his. Thus, the Court
ordered that respondent’s proposed factual stipulations were
deemed established.
                                 - 4 -

one had explained how he could owe the amounts sought by

respondent.   At that hearing, petitioner did not otherwise

contest the underlying tax liability or accept any of the payment

options proposed by respondent.     Respondent determined that

petitioner’s wages should be levied in a notice of determination

concerning collection actions under section 6330 sent on July 8,

1999.   In response, petitioner filed the petition in this case.



                                OPINION

A.   The Notice of Lien

     Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief under

section 6320 from the notice of lien.     We disagree.   Section 6320

was first effective January 19, 1999.     See Internal Revenue

Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206,

sec. 3401(d), 112 Stat. 685, 750.     Thus, section 6320 does not

apply to the notice of Federal tax lien issued on September 3,

1996.

B.   Underlying Tax Liability

     Respondent did not send a notice of deficiency to petitioner

for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1994, or 1995, but respondent did send a

notice of deficiency for 1992.     Respondent does not contend that

petitioner may not raise issues relating to 1992 in this case, in

part because it is not clear whether petitioner received that

notice of deficiency.     Thus, petitioner may challenge the
                               - 5 -

underlying liability for all of those years.    See sec.

6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may challenge amount of underlying tax

liability if taxpayer did not receive notice of deficiency for

period); Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001).

However, petitioner has done so only in the most minimal way,

alleging that he does not understand how he can owe so much, but

without offering any credible evidence or challenging that he is

liable for the amounts he reported late.

C.   The Levy Action

     We have jurisdiction to review respondent’s determination to

proceed with the levy action on an abuse of discretion basis.

See sec. 6330(d); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182

(2000); H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 755,

1020.   Petitioner contends that he cannot pay the taxes that are

due, but he is willing to forgo income tax refunds to which he

may be entitled for the current and future years.     He testified

that he had offered to pay respondent $50 per month, but he did

not show why that amount would be appropriate.    He offered no

credible evidence showing that respondent’s determination was an

abuse of discretion.   Thus, we conclude that petitioner is not

entitled to relief.



                                           Decision will be entered

                                    for respondent.
