                         T.C. Memo. 2007-36



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  EDWARD KAZUO OZAKI, Petitioner v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 22808-05L.              Filed February 20, 2007.



     Edward Kazuo Ozaki, for petitioner.

     Gregory Stull, for respondent.



               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     LARO, Judge:    Petitioner petitioned the Court under sections

6320 and 6330(d) to review a determination of the Commissioner’s

Office of Appeals (Appeals) sustaining respondent’s filing of a

lien on petitioner’s property.1   Respondent filed the lien as to


     1
         Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the
                                                     (continued...)
                                -2-

Federal income taxes that respondent considers to be owed by

petitioner for 1994 through 2000.     Following a trial on the

propriety of the lien, we sustain the determination of Appeals.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Most facts were stipulated.    We find the facts accordingly.

When the petition was filed herein, petitioner resided in

Chicago, Illinois.

     Petitioner received notices of deficiency for 1994 through

2000, and he petitioned this Court with respect thereto.     On

July 16, 2003, the Court sustained respondent’s determinations in

the notices of deficiency, as modified by respondent’s

concession.   See Ozaki v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-213.

Respondent assessed the resulting amounts and mailed to

petitioner a notice and demand for payment of those amounts.

     On January 12, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a

notice advising petitioner that respondent had filed a Notice of

Federal Tax Lien for the subject years and that petitioner had as

to this filing a right under section 6320 to a hearing with

Appeals.   Petitioner requested that hearing on February 4, 2005.

The request essentially alleged that petitioner had a mental

condition and had suffered racial injustice that entitled him to

relief from the lien.   On October 18, 2005, Appeals held a



     1
      (...continued)
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code.
                                -3-

telephonic hearing with petitioner during which he repeated the

aforementioned allegations.   On November 3, 2005, Appeals issued

to petitioner the notice of determination underlying this case.

That notice of determination sustained respondent’s filing of the

tax lien.   On December 2, 2006, petitioner petitioned the Court

with respect to the notice of determination alleging as his sole

ground for error “Racism by the Court”.

                              OPINION

     Section 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the

person described in section 6321 with written notice of the

filing of a notice of lien under section 6323.    Section 6320

provides further that the taxpayer may request that Appeals

review the matter in an administrative hearing.    Pursuant to

section 6330(c)(2)(A), as made applicable by section 6320(c), a

taxpayer may raise at the hearing any relevant issue with regard

to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal

defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's

intended collection action, and alternative means of collection.

See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000).

     Appeals held the requisite hearing with petitioner and

issued its determination sustaining the propriety of the lien.

Because petitioner received notices of deficiency for the subject

years, and hence is precluded from challenging his underlying tax
                                 -4-

liabilities for those years, see sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), we review

Appeals' determination for an abuse of discretion, see Sego v.

Commissioner, supra at 610.   Petitioner claims no specific abuse

of discretion on the part of Appeals in making its determination,

nor do we find any such abuse.   As we understand petitioner’s

sole position in this case, he claims that he has a mental

condition (similar to paranoia) resulting from racial injustice

against his ancestors and that this condition and injustice

entitle him to relief from the lien.     Those allegations, however,

do not establish that Appeals abused its discretion as to any

part of the determination at issue.     We sustain Appeals’

determination in its entirety.   We have considered all arguments

made by petitioner for a contrary holding and found those

arguments not discussed herein to be without merit.      To reflect

the foregoing,


                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
