                      T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-5



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                CAROL L. VAN DYKE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20656-03S.              Filed January 6, 2005.


     Carol L. Van Dyke, pro se.

     Robert A. Varra, for respondent.



     DEAN, Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of sections 7463 and 6330 of the Internal Revenue

Code in effect at the time the petition was filed.    Unless

otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code as amended.    The decision to be entered is

not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be

cited as authority.
                                 - 2 -

     The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice

of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section

6320 and/or 6330 (the notice).     Petitioner seeks review of the

determination to proceed with collection of her tax liabilities

for 1992, 1993, 1995, and 2000.     The issue for decision is

whether respondent may proceed with collection action as

determined in the notice.

     Stipulated facts and exhibits received into evidence are

incorporated herein by reference.     At the time the petition in

this case was filed, petitioner resided in Denver, Colorado.

                              Background

     Petitioner was sent notices of deficiency for 1992 and 2000.

Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court for either

year.

     According to the notice, at the hearing under section

6330(b) and (c), petitioner claimed that her Federal income tax

returns for 1992, 1993, and 1995 were falsified by her estranged

husband or someone else.

The Petition and Amended Petition

        Petitioner alleges in her petition that she went to the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office on Speer Boulevard in

Denver, Colorado, to discuss her tax matters and that the office,

in the "Ceaser Chavez" building "may be a fraudulent office".

She alleges that several years ago she showed the IRS that the
                               - 3 -

returns were "bogus" because she would never file her tax returns

"in my maiden name" as she is legally separated, not divorced.

The petition further alleges that "a Mary Ellen Brown + her

husband, who have swindled me over 23 years, bribed" an IRS

employee.   Petitioner also alleges that "1 year is the limit for

filing against anyone in a superior, or appellate court.     By the

statues [sic] of limitation their arguement [sic] is bogus."

     Other allegations in the petition concern an alleged

robbery, alleged payments to her by her husband, and an

allegation that petitioner (whose returns describe her profession

as nursing) has engaged in the practice of law "in my own behalf

in California."

     In her amended petition, petitioner alleges that she does

not owe any tax because she "did the long forms in 1992, 1993 and

1995" and sent in a cashier's check for $860.73, and she

realleges that there is a 1-year statute of limitations that

prohibits respondent's collection action.

                           Discussion

     Section 6330(c) prescribes the matters that a person may

raise at an Appeals Office hearing.     Section 6330(c)(2)(A)

provides that a person may raise collection issues such as

spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's

intended collection action, and possible alternative means of

collection.   See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);
                               - 4 -

Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000).   In addition,

section 6330(c)(2)(B) establishes the circumstances under which a

person may challenge the existence or amount of her underlying

tax liability.   Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the person

may raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of

the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive a

statutory notice of deficiency for the tax liability or did not

otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the liability.

     Petitioner submitted at trial an eight-page handwritten

document that she testified was a summary of her case.    The

document, rambling and difficult to follow, repeats some

allegations from the petition and raises new matter.    The new

matter includes allegations that an IRS employee stole her car,

that President Bush made lewd comments to her by telephone, and

that Archibald Cox stole from her a "Red Samsonite suitcase".

The evidence she submitted includes a handwritten document for

tax year 1995 listing a $6,900 deduction for a 1983 van that she

alleges was stolen from her "By President Clinton".

     Petitioner has alleged that certain correspondence,

including the notice of deficiency for 1992, was sent to her

using, in whole or in part, her maiden name.   She alleges that

her maiden name is "not my name".   She has, however, not denied

receiving notices of deficiency for 1992 and 2000.    The Court

concludes that petitioner is precluded from challenging the
                               - 5 -

existence or amount of her 1992 and 2000 tax liabilities in a

section 6330 hearing or before the Court.   See sec.

6330(c)(2)(B); sec. 301.6330-1(f), Q&A-5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

Even were she not so precluded, she failed to present evidence

that the amounts assessed are incorrect.

     Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not

properly at issue, the Court will review the administrative

determination of the Appeals Office for abuse of discretion.

Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra

at 181-183.   The Court reviews only whether the Appeals officer's

refusal to accept petitioner's arguments was arbitrary,

capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.     See Woodral

v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).

     Section 6501 sets forth limitations on assessment and

provides as a general rule that income taxes must be assessed

within 3 years after the filing of the return.     Sec. 6501(a).

Where assessment was made within the pertinent period of

limitations, the tax may be collected by levy within 10 years

after the assessment of the tax.   Sec. 6502(a).    A hearing

request under section 6330 will suspend the running of the period

of limitations described in section 6502 during the period that

"such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending."     Sec.

6330(e)(1).
                               - 6 -

     Petitioner's liability for 1992 as shown on her return was

assessed on January 10, 1994, and additional tax and a late

filing addition to tax for 1992 were assessed on January 9, 1995.

Petitioner's tax liability for 1993 as shown on her return and

late filing addition to tax were assessed on June 6, 1994.    Her

tax liability for 1995 and a failure-to-pay addition to tax were

assessed on May 6, 1996.   Petitioner's tax liability for 2000, as

shown on her return, was assessed on May 28, 2001, and additional

tax was assessed on October 21, 2002.   Accordingly, assessment

was well within the 3-year period of limitations for all years.

Respondent received petitioner's Form 12153, Request for a

Collection Due Process Hearing, on January 14, 2003, well within

the applicable 10-year period of limitations for collection.    The

running of the 10-year period was suspended by the Form 12153 and

remains suspended.   Collection of petitioner's Federal income tax

liabilities for the years at issue is not time barred.

     The Court has considered the other arguments raised by

petitioner and concludes they are either irrelevant or without

merit.   The Appeals officer's refusal to accept petitioner's

arguments was not arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis

in fact or law.

     The Court holds that respondent may proceed with collection

action as determined in the notice.
                                - 7 -

    Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

    To reflect the foregoing,


                                             Decision will be

                                        entered for respondent.
