                          T.C. Memo. 2003-25



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                KENNETH A. SCHREMS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 10848-01L.                Filed January 28, 2003.


     Kenneth A. Schrems, pro se.

     Michael A. Pesavento, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:   The issue for decision is whether respondent

abused his discretion in determining to proceed with collection.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

     Petitioner failed to file income tax returns relating to

1994, 1995, and 1996.    On December 28, 1998, respondent assessed

deficiencies against petitioner relating to those years.   As of
                                - 2 -

July 31, 2001, petitioner’s unpaid income tax liabilities were as

follows:

                   Year                 Unpaid Liability

                   1994                      $13,776
                   1995                       15,526
                   1996                       12,897

     Respondent also assessed a $564 penalty pursuant to section

66821 relating to petitioner’s filing of a false Form W-4,

Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, relating to 1997.

On October 28, 2002, the Court granted respondent’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike as to the taxable

year 1997.

     On April 11, 2001, respondent filed a lien for income taxes,

interest, and penalties owed by petitioner relating to the years

in issue.    That same day, respondent issued petitioner Form 3172,

a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing

Under IRC 6320 (Notice of Federal Tax Lien).

     On May 7, 2001, respondent received petitioner’s Form 12153,

Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (Request).      In

conjunction with his Request, petitioner sought discovery with

respect to 51 categories of documents including:       (1)

“Documentary evidence of the internal revenue district, * * * in

which [petitioner] * * * [is] liable for federal tax”; (2) the



     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.
                                - 3 -

“contracts” that require petitioner to pay taxes; and (3) the

list of taxable “objects” owned by petitioner.    Petitioner also

demanded that he be allowed to question respondent’s revenue

agents.

       By letters dated June 19, 21, and 26, 2001, respondent

attempted to schedule a hearing with petitioner.    On June 28,

2001, respondent sent petitioner transcripts of accounts which

delineated all assessments for each of the years in issue.      By

letter dated June 28, 2001, petitioner declined to participate in

a hearing, stating that “No hearing can possibly take place * * *

[until] the government * * * [produces]” the documents

establishing that he is subject to tax.    The June 28, 2001,

letter also states that he is not a “United States individual”

subject to tax and only certain Federal employees are subject to

tax.    Petitioner did not propose collection alternatives, raise

spousal defenses, or allege that he did not receive statutory

notices of deficiency relating to the years in issue.

       On July 31, 2001, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330, in which respondent determined that the Notice of

Federal Tax Lien should not be withdrawn, all legal and

procedural requirements for collection had been met, and the

filing of the lien was reasonable and not intrusive under the

circumstances.
                                 - 4 -

     On August 30, 2001, petitioner, while residing in Palm

Harbor, Florida, filed his petition for review of the

determination.

                                OPINION

     Section 6330(c)(2)(B) allows challenges to the existence or

amount of the underlying liability if petitioner did not receive

a notice of deficiency or have an opportunity to dispute the

liability.    Where the validity of the underlying liability is

properly at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.

Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000).     In cases where

the validity of the liability is not properly part of the appeal,

the Court reviews the Commissioner's administrative determination

for abuse of discretion.    See id.; see also Goza v. Commissioner,

114 T.C. 176, 182-183 (2000).    Because petitioner does not

challenge the validity of the underlying tax liability in his

petition, we review respondent’s determination for abuse of

discretion.

     Petitioner contends that respondent failed to obtain

verification from the Secretary that the requirements of all

applicable laws and administrative procedures had been met

pursuant to section 6330(c)(1).    We disagree.   Both the

assessment of taxes and the recordation of the lien at issue were

carried out in accordance with all appropriate statutes and

regulations, as verified in the notice of determination.     Sec.
                                - 5 -

6330(c)(1).   Respondent verified the assessments with literal

transcripts, which were sent to petitioner’s attorney on June 28,

2001.    Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51 (holding that

absent a showing of irregularity, transcripts that identify the

taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable

period, and the amount of the assessment are sufficient to

establish that a valid assessment was made).    Petitioner did not

provide any evidence of an irregularity in the assessment

procedure that would raise a question about the validity of the

assessment.    Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 167 (2002).

     Petitioner also contends that a section 6330 hearing before

an Appeals officer was not properly held.    Respondent offered

petitioner the opportunity to meet either in person or by

telephone.    Petitioner declined because he was not allowed to

conduct discovery or to compel the appearance of witnesses.

Respondent, however, had no obligation to provide the documents

requested by petitioner.    See Kuglin v. Commissioner, supra.

Moreover, petitioner does not have the right, in a section 6330

Appeals hearing, to subpoena witnesses.     Davis v. Commissioner,

supra.   Respondent did not abuse his discretion by issuing his

determination after petitioner refused to participate in the

Appeals hearing.    Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s

determination.

     Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or
                                 - 6 -

meritless.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
