                        T.C. Memo. 2010-180



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              WILLIE C. JACKSON, JR., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 19243-09L.             Filed August 9, 2010.



     Willie C. Jackson, Jr., pro se.

     Katherine Lee Kosar, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     KROUPA, Judge:   This collection review matter is before the

Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant

to Rule 121.1   Respondent contends that he is entitled to



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

judgment as a matter of law on whether the Appeals Office

correctly determined to sustain the proposed levy against

petitioner to collect the unpaid amounts he reported due on the

late-filed income tax returns for 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2007

(years at issue).   We shall grant respondent’s motion.

                            Background

     Petitioner resided in Ohio at the time he filed the

petition.   Petitioner failed to timely file a return for several

years.   Petitioner eventually filed a return for all years at

issue in 2008.   On each return petitioner reported a tax due but

failed to pay it.   Respondent then assessed the $85,7252 shown

due on the returns and $3,886 of statutory interest under section

6601.3   Respondent also assessed $4,727 of late payment and late

filing additions to tax (additions) for the years at issue.

     Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amounts.    Respondent

thereafter sent petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice

of Your Right to a Hearing (levy notice).   Petitioner timely

requested a face-to-face collection due process (CDP) hearing

that he wanted to record.   Petitioner also challenged

respondent’s collection activity as well as the underlying tax

liabilities that he had reported on the returns.   Petitioner also



     2
      All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
     3
      Respondent applied twelve $50 payments that petitioner
filed with his returns against petitioner’s liabilities.
                                - 3 -

asked that the additions and interest be abated and that

alternative collection methods be considered.

     Settlement Officer Deborah Douglas (SO Douglas) was assigned

petitioner’s collection case.   SO Douglas mailed a letter to

petitioner to schedule a telephone conference.   SO Douglas

informed petitioner that to have a face-to-face meeting he had to

submit copies of Federal income tax returns for 2003, 2005, and

2008 as well as verify he was current with estimated tax payments

for 2008 and 2009.   SO Douglas also requested that petitioner

submit complete financial information on Form 433-A, Collection

Information Statement, for alternative collection methods to be

considered.   SO Douglas also asked petitioner to provide

reasonable cause for his late payments and late filings for the

four years at issue if he wished to have the additions to tax for

those years abated and to send copies of amended returns for

those years if he disagreed with the self-assessed amounts.     SO

Douglas stated in a followup letter dated May 19, 2009 that

petitioner had 14 days from the date of the letter to provide SO

Douglas with the requested information.

     Petitioner declined to participate in the scheduled

telephone conference with SO Douglas and insisted on a face-to-

face hearing.   Petitioner failed to provide the requested

financial information, a completed Form 433-A, or amended returns

to SO Douglas by the stated deadline.   SO Douglas reviewed the
                                 - 4 -

material and arguments petitioner presented and determined to

sustain the proposed levy.   SO Douglas sent petitioner a Notice

of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section

6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice) sustaining the proposed

levy regarding the four years at issue.    The determination notice

stated that petitioner did not offer any collection alternatives

and failed to show that his tax liabilities differed from those

that he reported on the income tax returns he filed for the years

at issue.

     Petitioner timely filed an imperfect petition seeking relief

from the determination notice.    Petitioner filed an amended

petition contending that SO Douglas did not provide him the

opportunity to challenge the existence of the underlying

liabilities and denied him the right to a face-to-face hearing.

Respondent moved for summary judgment.    Petitioner failed to file

an objection and also failed to appear at calendar call for the

scheduled hearing on respondent’s motion.

                             Discussion

     We are asked to decide whether it is appropriate to grant

summary judgment in this collection review proceeding.    Summary

judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary

and expensive trials.   See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001).     Either party may move for

summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in
                                 - 5 -

controversy.    Rule 121(a).   The moving party bears the burden of

proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v.

Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).     The party opposing

summary judgment must set forth specific facts to show that a

question of material fact exists and may not rely merely on

allegations or denials in the pleadings.     Grant Creek Water

Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova

Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

     The Court in collection review matters will review an

Appeals Office determination de novo where the underlying tax

liability is at issue.    Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-

182 (2000).    A taxpayer’s underlying tax liability may be at

issue if the taxpayer did not receive a deficiency notice or did

not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability.

Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).    Respondent was not obliged to issue a

deficiency notice here as the taxes in question were self-

assessed.   See sec. 6201(a)(1); see also Montgomery v.

Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 7-8 (2004) (“underlying tax liability”

includes an amount self-assessed under section 6201(a)).    Thus,

the Court will review de novo SO Douglas’ determination that

petitioner is liable for the assessed amounts.

     Petitioner filed a return for each of the years at issue,

reported income tax due for each year, and failed to pay the
                                - 6 -

amount reported as due.    Petitioner now wants to contest

liability for the taxes he reported.     Petitioner did not provide

SO Douglas or this Court with any information to support any

modifications to his outstanding Federal income tax liabilities

or the additions for any period at issue.     Rather, petitioner

simply parrots the language of the statute and fails to make any

relevant arguments.    Petitioner has failed to support his

challenge to the assessments here.      Cf. Montgomery v.

Commissioner, supra.    We therefore conclude that petitioner is

liable for the underlying amounts at issue.

     Petitioner also argues that SO Douglas denied him the right

to a face-to-face hearing to challenge the underlying liabilities

or raise collection alternatives.    We must review SO Douglas’

determination regarding the collection action for an abuse of

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

A CDP hearing may consist of one or more written or oral

communications between an Appeals officer and the taxpayer.     Sec.

301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see Katz v.

Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000); Dinino v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2009-284.   This Court and other courts have held that a

face-to-face CDP hearing is not required under section 6330 in

all circumstances.    Katz v. Commissioner, supra (telephone

conference procedurally proper); Williamson v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2009-188 (taxpayer not entitled to face-to-face hearing);
                                - 7 -

Stockton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-186 (upholding denial

of face-to-face conference); Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2004-17 (prior telephone conversations constitute CDP

hearing); Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731 (M.D.N.C.

2003) (telephone conversations sufficed), affd. 85 Fed. Appx. 333

(4th Cir. 2004).

     Here, SO Douglas exchanged written correspondence with

petitioner and gave him ample opportunity to provide the

requisite documentation for a determination and to raise relevant

issues.   Moreover, SO Douglas requested that petitioner submit

complete financial information on a completed Form 433-A with

supporting documentation for collection alternatives to be

considered.    Petitioner failed to submit the requested

information.

     SO Douglas also verified that all requirements of applicable

law and administrative procedure had been met.    SO Douglas

considered the issues petitioner raised and whether the proposed

collection action balanced the need for efficient collection with

any legitimate concerns of petitioner.    We do not find that SO

Douglas abused her discretion in sustaining the proposed

collection by levy.

     We have considered all arguments made in reaching our

decision, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they

are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.   We conclude that there
                                 - 8 -

are no genuine issues of material fact and that respondent is

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         An appropriate order and

                                  decision will be entered for

                                  respondent.
