                          T.C. Memo. 2005-48



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                DONNIE FRANCIS SCHROEDER, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1157-04L.                Filed March 15, 2005.



     Donnie Schroeder, pro se.

     Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent.


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     LARO, Judge:    Petitioner petitioned the Court under section

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

Appeals (Appeals) sustaining respondent’s proposed levy upon his

property.1    Respondent proposed the levy to collect 1995 and 1996

Federal income taxes with additions thereto totaling


     1
       Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code.
                                -2-

approximately $24,409.2   Following trial of the matter and

concessions by respondent, we must decide as to 1995 and 1996

whether Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the proposed

levy.3   We hold that it did not.

                            Background

     Petitioner resided in Verdi, Nevada, when his petition was

filed.   He filed Federal income tax returns for 1995 and 1996,

and respondent determined a deficiency for each of those years.

Petitioner petitioned this Court to redetermine these amounts;

following trial we sustained respondent’s determination.      See

Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-211, affd. 63 Fed.

Appx. 414 (9th Cir. 2003) (Schroeder I).   Petitioner did not file

an appeal bond and respondent assessed on February 3, 2003, the

amounts due under our decision in Schroeder I.   Schroeder I was

affirmed on May 20, 2003.

     On May 15, 2003, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final

Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing.

Petitioner requested the related section 6330 hearing, which was

conducted via correspondence.   Shortly after receiving


     2
       We say “approximately” as these amounts were computed
before the present proceeding and have since increased on account
of interest.
     3
       The petition in part sought review of respondent’s levy to
collect 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 penalties under sec. 6702. We
dismissed those years because we lack jurisdiction under sec.
6330(d)(1) to consider such penalties. Van Es v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 324, 328-329 (2000).
                                   -3-

petitioner’s request for a section 6330 hearing respondent

mistakenly issued, and then withdrew in less than 2 weeks, a

Notice of Levy.   On December 18, 2003, Appeals mailed to

petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection

Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, sustaining the proposed

levy.

                               Discussion

     We review nonliability administrative determinations for

abuse of discretion.      Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610

(2000).   Petitioner has not attempted to show that Appeals failed

to comply with section 6330.     He raises only two arguments: that

collection should have been stayed by his appeal, and that

respondent by collecting interest is attempting to levy on an

amount greater than that stated by this Court in Schroeder I.4

We are not persuaded by either argument.

     An appeal from a decision of this Court does not operate as

a stay of assessment or collection of any portion of the

deficiency determined by the decision unless a taxpayer files a

bond with the Court on or before the date he files his notice of

appeal.   Sec. 7485(a).    Respondent was entitled to proceed with

assessment and collection after petitioner filed his notice of

appeal without posting a bond.     Respondent is entitled to collect


     4
       We disregard petitioner’s arguments as to the erroneously
issued Notice of Levy since respondent voluntarily withdrew this
Notice of Levy shortly after issuing it.
                                 -4-

interest on any amount of unpaid taxes, with interest beginning

to accrue on such unpaid taxes as of the last date prescribed for

payment.   Sec. 6601(a).5   Petitioner has therefore raised no

valid arguments that the determination by Appeals was an abuse of

discretion, and we sustain that determination.     All other

arguments by the parties have been considered, and those not

discussed herein have been rejected as meritless.        Accordingly,



                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.




     5
       Respondent concedes that interest accrues on related
penalties and additions to tax from Feb. 3, 2003, when respondent
assessed petitioner’s 1995 and 1996 deficiencies.
