                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-186



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 NEIL RABINOWITZ, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11264-05S.              Filed December 11, 2006.


     Neil Rabinowitz, pro se.

     James H. Harris, Jr., for respondent.



     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code

in effect at the time the petition was filed.   The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.




1
     Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code.
                                 - 2 -

     Petitioner timely filed a petition under section

6330(d)(1)(A) for review of respondent’s determination to proceed

with the collection of petitioner’s 1996 and 1997 Federal income

tax liabilities.   The issue is whether the refusal by the Appeals

Office to release or withdraw a Federal tax lien constituted an

abuse of discretion.   At the time the petition was filed

petitioner resided in Pikesville, Maryland.

                            Background

     The facts are as follows.    Respondent assessed tax

liabilities for the taxable years 1996 and 1997 and, on December

28, 2004, filed a Federal tax lien showing the balance due.     On

December 29, 2004, respondent notified petitioner that the tax

lien had been filed.   Petitioner requested a hearing to have the

tax lien removed and suggested that a compromise was appropriate.

Petitioner, however, did not submit information concerning an

offer-in-compromise.   The Appeals Office determined that the

filing of the tax lien was appropriate and the least intrusive

collection means of protecting the Government’s interest.

Petitioner appeals.

                           Discussion

     After the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien, a taxpayer

is entitled to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an

impartial officer of respondent’s Office of Appeals.    Secs.

6320(a) and (b), 6330(b)(3).   If a taxpayer requests a hearing,
                               - 3 -

he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax

or to the tax lien, including challenges to the appropriateness

of the collection action and “offers of collection alternatives,

which may include the posting of a bond, the substitution of

other assets, an installment agreement, or an offer-in-

compromise.”   Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A); see also sec. 6320(c).    A

determination takes into account consideration of the

verification that the requirements of the applicable law and

administrative procedures have been met and “whether any proposed

collection action balances the need for the efficient collection

of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any

collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.”     Sec.

6330(c)(3)(C).

     There is no issue here concerning the correctness of the

amounts of the tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997.2   There is also

no dispute that the taxes were properly assessed and that

petitioner has failed to pay these liabilities.   We, therefore,

review the Appeals Office’s refusal to lift the tax lien by the

standard whether it was an abuse of discretion; i.e., whether it

was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.

We do not substitute our judgment for that of the Appeals Office.

See sec. 6330(d); Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 308, 320-


2
     The original assessment was corrected to reflect the amounts
shown on petitioner’s 1996 and 1997 returns that were filed on
Feb. 7, 2005.
                                - 4 -

321 (2005), affd. ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir., Nov. 20, 2006); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).

     The Commissioner may withdraw a notice of tax lien, if,

relevant here, the withdrawal will facilitate collection, sec.

6323(j)(1)(C), or, with the consent of the parties, the

withdrawal would be in the best interest of the taxpayer and the

United States, sec. 6323(j)(1)(D).      Essentially, petitioner’s

argument is that he is an unemployed insurance agent who has been

unable to obtain employment because of the filing of the Federal

tax lien and the public awareness of his financial situation.

        Petitioner’s argument is based on a misconception.     A tax

lien arises at the time the assessment is made.      Secs. 6321 and

6322.    The notice of tax lien protects the Government’s interest

as a creditor against other creditors.      See sec. 6323.   But, even

if a notice of tax lien was not filed, the liability still

exists.    To the extent that petitioner argues that withdrawal of

the notice of tax lien would improve his credit, this argument is

wrong.    Petitioner would still be required, if requested, to

disclose the liabilities.    Lurking beneath petitioner’s argument

is the suspicion that petitioner seeks to mislead third parties

as to his true financial situation by having the notice

withdrawn.    While this may be in petitioner’s best interest, we

have difficulty in finding that the interest of the United States

is served by such a legerdemain.    We do not find that the refusal
                              - 5 -

by the Appeals Office to withdraw the notice of tax lien was an

abuse of discretion.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
