                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-144



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  LINH N. NGUYEN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18531-03S.           Filed October 20, 2004.


     Linh N. Nguyen, pro se.

     Jason M. Kuratnick, for respondent.



      DEAN, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time that the petition was filed.   Unless otherwise

indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule

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

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

and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
                               - 2 -

     This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for

summary judgment under Rule 121.   This proceeding arises from a

petition for judicial review filed in response to a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 sent to petitioner.

                            Background

     Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency for

taxable years 1994 and 1995.   The notice determined deficiencies

of $12,510 and $10,626 for 1994 and 1995, respectively.    The

notice also determined an addition to tax under section

6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file an income tax return for

1994 of $2,720.   In addition, respondent issued to petitioner a

notice of deficiency for taxable year 1996 determining a

deficiency of $3,878 and an accuracy-related penalty under

section 6662(a) of $776.

     Both notices were sent to petitioner and his wife, Lan Thi

Nguyen,1 at 316 Pennsylvania Avenue, Downingtown, Pennsylvania

19335-2645.   Neither petitioner nor his wife filed a petition

with the Tax Court in response to the notices of deficiency.

Subsequently, respondent assessed the deficiencies and interest

for tax years 1994 and 1995.   Respondent also assessed the




     1
      Mrs. Nguyen did not sign the Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing, or participate in the collection
due process hearing and is not a party to this case.
                               - 3 -

addition to tax for 1994.   Additionally, respondent assessed the

deficiency, penalty, and interest for tax year 1996.

     Respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with respect

to petitioner's tax liabilities.   The unpaid balance was shown as

$35,991.   Thereafter, respondent sent to petitioner, a Notice of

Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC

6320, regarding the lien.   Petitioner returned to respondent a

Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.    It was

signed only by petitioner, not by his wife.

     On the Form 12153, petitioner supplied the following

explanation of his disagreement with the lien:   "I was on

business and was filling [sic] income every year I was loss [sic]

large money on this business and the end of it I wass [sic]

closed this business The (illegible) I was loss [sic] large

money."

     After an in-person hearing with petitioner, respondent

issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)

Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (collection notice) for tax years

1994, 1995, and 1996.

     Petitioner's petition challenging the collection notice was

filed with the Tax Court and reflected an address for petitioner

at 316 Pennsylvania Avenue, Downingtown, Pennsylvania 19335.    The

petition states:
                                - 4 -

     "I request that the Court reevaluate and reduce my tax
     liabilities for these years. I did not make money in my
     part-time business and I filed the tax returns for these
     years with H&R Block."

     Respondent asks for summary judgment with respect to the

Notice of Determination in that petitioner's receipt of the

notices of deficiency precludes him from challenging the

underlying deficiencies.   The only error assigned in the petition

pertains to petitioner's challenge of his underlying liabilities.

Petitioner was ordered to file a response to respondent's motion.

No response has been received by the Court.

                             Discussion

     Rule 121(a) allows a party to move "for a summary

adjudication in the moving party's favor upon all or any part of

the legal issues in controversy."   Rule 121(b) directs that a

decision on such a motion shall be rendered "if the pleadings,

answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any

other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any,

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."

     The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no

genuine issue of material fact exists and that he or she is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.    Sundstrand Corp. v.

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

Cir. 1994).   Facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party.   Id.   However, where a motion for summary
                                - 5 -

judgment has been properly made and supported by the moving

party, the opposing party may not rest upon mere allegations or

denials contained in that party's pleadings but must by

affidavits or otherwise set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial.      Rule 121(d).   The Court has

considered the pleadings and other materials in the record and

concludes that there is no genuine justiciable issue of material

fact regarding the collection matters in this case.

I.   Collection Actions--General Rules

     Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States

upon all property and rights to property of a taxpayer where

there exists a failure to pay any tax liability after demand for

payment.   The lien generally arises at the time assessment is

made.   Sec. 6322.

     The Secretary must notify in writing the person described in

section 6321 of the filing of a notice of lien under section

6323.   Sec. 6320(a)(1).   The notice required by section 6320 must

advise the taxpayer of the opportunity for administrative review

of the matter in the form of a hearing before the Internal

Revenue Service Office of Appeals.      Sec. 6320(a)(2) and (3).

Section 6320(b) and (c) grants a taxpayer, who so requests, the

right to a fair hearing before an impartial Appeals officer,

generally to be conducted in accordance with the procedures

described in section 6330(c), (d), and (e).
                                  - 6 -

      Section 6330(c) addresses the matters to be considered at

the hearing.     As relevant here, a taxpayer may challenge the

appropriateness of the Commissioner's collection actions and

submit offers of collection alternatives.     Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii)

and (iii).    The taxpayer may also raise challenges to the

existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the

taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for the

liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the

tax liability.     Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

      Once the Appeals officer has issued a determination

regarding the disputed collection action, the taxpayer may seek

judicial review in the Tax Court or if the Tax Court lacks

jurisdiction in the matter, in a U.S. District Court.     Sec.

6330(d).   Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is

properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo

basis.   However, where the validity of the underlying tax

liability is not properly at issue, the Court will review the

Commissioner's administrative determination for abuse of

discretion.      Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).

II.   Analysis

      In this case, petitioner's only challenge with respect to

the collection notice pertains to his underlying tax liabilities

for 1994, 1995, and 1996.     Petitioner, however, was previously

issued statutory notices of deficiency for each of the years in
                                 - 7 -

issue but failed to commence an action in this Court.       He has at

no time alleged that he did not receive the deficiency notices,

and there is no evidence in the record that any of the notices

were returned as unclaimed or undeliverable.       Accordingly,

section 6330(c)(2)(B) precludes petitioner from disputing his

underlying liabilities in this proceeding.

     Petitioner has not raised any challenges to the

appropriateness of the collection action or any collection

alternatives.   A petition for review of a collection action must

clearly specify the errors alleged to have been committed in the

notice of determination.   Any issues not raised in the

assignments of error are deemed to be conceded by petitioner.

Rule 331(b)(4); see Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183

(2000); see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185-186

(2001).

     The Court will grant respondent's motion for summary

judgment.   Accordingly, respondent may keep in place the notice

of tax lien filed with respect to petitioner's tax liabilities.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         An appropriate order and

                                 decision will be entered in

                                 this case.
