                        T.C. Memo. 2008-188



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  SHAUN D. RYAN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 10864-07L.               Filed August 6, 2008.



     Shaun D. Ryan, pro se.

     Donna F. Herbert, for respondent.


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION


     GERBER, Judge:   Petitioner, pursuant to section 6330(d),1

seeks review of respondent’s determination to proceed with

collection by levy of petitioner’s unpaid 2001, 2002, and 2003

Federal income tax liabilities.   The issue for our consideration


     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

is whether respondent abused his discretion by determining to

proceed with the proposed levy.

                            Background

     Respondent moved for summary judgment in this section 6330

collection case with respect to all of the issues and for the

imposition of a penalty under section 6673.    By order of the

Chief Judge, petitioner was given the opportunity to file an

objection to respondent’s motion, and the motion was calendared

for a hearing on April 7, 2008, in Los Angeles, California.      In

response to the Chief Judge’s order petitioner questioned the

Chief Judge’s authority and requested his Presidential

Commission, Oath of Office, Appointment Affidavit, and Senate

Confirmation.   Petitioner, however, did not respond to the merits

of respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and he failed to

appear at the April 7, 2008, hearing in Los Angeles, California.

     Petitioner failed to file an income tax return for 2003, and

he submitted documents purporting to be returns (containing

zeros in all boxes) for 2001 and 2002.    Petitioner received

notices of deficiency for all 3 years determining income tax

deficiencies but failed to petition this Court, allowing

respondent to assess said deficiencies.    Thereafter, respondent

sent petitioner a Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and

Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (notice 1) with respect to the
                                - 3 -

2001 and 2002 liabilities.    Respondent sent petitioner a similar

notice for 2003 (notice 2).

     Petitioner requested a hearing with respect to notice 1 and

notice 2 on September 1, 2005, and July 18, 2006, respectively.

On January 24, 2007, Settlement Officer Nathan August (Mr.

August) sent a letter to petitioner scheduling a telephone

hearing for February 28, 2007, at 10 a.m.   In that same letter,

petitioner was offered a face-to-face hearing on “any

nonfrivolous issue”.   In correspondence with Mr. August

petitioner stated that his reason for disagreeing with the

proposed collection action was “simply that * * * [he] [wants] to

make sure that all the administrative procedures of IRC 6320 and

6330 have been met.”   Mr. August obtained and sent to petitioner

computerized transcripts of account for each taxable year.

     On February 26, 2007, Mr. August received a Form 2848, Power

of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, and facsimile from

Jeff Hubacek (Mr. Hubacek), who ostensibly represented the

interests of petitioner, advising that a “family issue” required

the rescheduling of the February 28, 2007, telephone hearing.

Previously (approximately June 24, 2004) Mr. Hubacek had been

enjoined from engaging in the preparation of fraudulent tax

returns that contained merely zeros.    In enjoining Mr. Hubacek,

the Federal District Court judge found that his scheme was “to

help his customers evade taxes * * * [using] the same frivolous
                                - 4 -

theory propounded by Irwin Schiff”.     The judge also found that

“Hubacek submits false Forms 2848 to the IRS stating that he is

an attorney or his customer’s full-time employee.”     In view of

that information, Mr. August did not communicate with Mr.

Hubacek.

     On February 28, 2007, Mr. August sent another letter to

petitioner to provide an opportunity for a hearing, but no

response was received from petitioner.     Accordingly, on April 12,

2007, petitioner was issued Notices of Determination Concerning

Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 for his 2001,

2002, and 2003 tax years, from which petitioner petitioned this

Court for review.

                           Discussion

     Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and

avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.     Fla. Peach Corp. v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).     Summary judgment may be

granted with respect to a legal issue, if there is “no genuine

issue as to any material fact and * * * a decision may be

rendered as a matter of law.”   Rule 121(a) and (b); Craig v.

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 259-260 (2002); Sundstrand Corp. v.

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

Cir. 1994).

     In his petition petitioner broadly and generally contends:

The tax liens and levies do not comply with the income tax
                                - 5 -

regulations; the Appeals officer made false and erroneous claims

in the notice of determination; and the Government may levy only

on the property of Federal employees.   Petitioner did not allege

with any meaningful specificity which claims were false or

erroneous.   Throughout the administrative process and in his

pleadings, petitioner has raised tax-protester and frivolous

arguments, all of which have been addressed by this and other

courts on numerous occasions.   See, e.g., Carrillo v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-290 (and cases cited therein).     We

see no need to reiterate the reasons petitioner’s arguments are

without merit or substance.

     Petitioner did not petition this Court from his statutory

notices of deficiency, and respondent assessed the taxes after

the 90-day period.   Accordingly, petitioner may not contest the

underlying tax liabilities.   See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.

604, 610 (2000).   Our review of respondent’s administrative

action in this proceeding is solely for an abuse of discretion.

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

     Other than frivolous arguments, petitioner questioned

whether the administrative procedures had been followed.   Section

6330(c)(3) requires that the determination of an Appeals officer

take into consideration:   (1) The verification that the

requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure

have been met; (2) issues raised by the taxpayer; and (3) whether
                                 - 6 -

any proposed collection action balances the need for the

efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the

person that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary.

     Mr. August supplied petitioner with transcripts of his

account, which complied with the verification requirement.     That

adequately addressed the only nonfrivolous issue petitioner

raised and, as indicated above, there was no need for

petitioner’s well-worn frivolous issues to be addressed.

Finally, petitioner did not raise any collection alternatives or

practical collection concerns.    Accordingly, we find that there

was no abuse of discretion in the decision to proceed with

collection activity.

     Respondent also seeks the imposition of a penalty under

section 6673 on the grounds that petitioner has instituted or

maintained this proceeding primarily for delay and/or that his

position in this proceeding is frivolous or groundless.    Sec.

6673(a)(1).   Section 6673 applies to collection due process

proceedings, and a penalty, not in excess of $25,000, may be

imposed in this proceeding.   See Pierson v. Commissioner, 115

T.C. 576 (2000).

     Other than questioning whether the administrative procedures

were followed, petitioner has not raised any questions,

arguments, or issues other than those which have long been

labeled frivolous.   Typical of petitioner’s groundless and
                                 - 7 -

frivolous positions is that because he is not a Federal employee,

he is not subject to the tax or a levy based on the tax.

Petitioner has wasted the time of the legal system and respondent

by pursuing positions which have been rejected for more than 20

years.   Petitioner did not respond to the Court’s orders or

appear at the trial session, and he also failed to raise

meaningful arguments.   It is clear to this Court that petitioner

instituted and maintained this proceeding for purposes of delay.

The circumstances of this case warrant the imposition of a $3,000

penalty to address petitioner’s actions and to discourage him

from similar actions in the future.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         An appropriate order and

                                 decision will be entered.
