                         T.C. Memo. 2004-203



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



   GEORGE N. GERAKIOS, a.k.a. JORGE N. GERAKIOS, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11125-02L.              Filed September 7, 2004.


     George N. Gerakios, pro se.

     John D. Faucher, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground of mootness (the

motion).   The issue for decision is whether petitioner’s case is

moot.1


     1
        It is unclear whether at some point petitioner was
raising a refund claim in this proceeding. At the hearing,
                                                   (continued...)
                                   - 2 -

Background

        On or about April 12, 2001, respondent issued a “Final

Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing”

to petitioner for his tax liabilities for 1989, 1993, 1994, and

1996.       On or about May 2, 2001,2 respondent issued a “Notice of

Federal Tax Lien and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing” to

petitioner for his tax liabilities for 1989, 1993, 1994, and

1996.

     Pursuant to the aforementioned notices, petitioner requested

a section 63303 hearing.      On June 4, 2002, respondent issued a

notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under

section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining the proposed collection

action.       On July 3, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for lien or

levy action under Code section 6320(c) or 6330(d).

     On or about August 7, 2002, in order to refinance his home,

petitioner paid in full his then-outstanding income taxes,



        1
      (...continued)
however, petitioner eventually made it clear that the only remedy
he was seeking from the Court was for the IRS to reverse the levy
action and remove the lien that was filed--he was not requesting
a refund in this proceeding. Additionally, petitioner did not
dispute his underlying liabilities.
        2
        In the attachment to the notice of determination it
states that this notice was issued on Apr. 6, 2001. The date of
this notice is not in issue as respondent concedes that
petitioner timely filed his request for a sec. 6330 hearing.
        3
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code.
                               - 3 -

penalties, and interest with respect to 1989, 1993, 1994, and

1996.   On or about August 30, 2002, respondent released the lien

against petitioner for 1989, 1993, 1994, and 1996.   Respondent no

longer intends to pursue any levy action against petitioner for

any income taxes, penalties, or interest for 1989, 1993, 1994,

and/or 1996 as they have been paid in full.

     On November 4, 2003, respondent filed the motion.    On

November 5, 2003, the Court ordered petitioner to file any

objection to the motion on or before November 19, 2003.    On

November 18, 2003, petitioner filed an objection to the motion.

The Court heard argument on the motion.

Discussion

     Our jurisdiction under section 6330 is generally limited to

reviewing whether the proposed lien or levy action is proper.

Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-152.   Respondent

released the lien and has stated that he is no longer pursuing

the proposed levy.   As the parties now agree that there is no

unpaid liability for 1989, 1993, 1994, or 1996 upon which a lien

or levy could be based, we agree with respondent that the case is

moot.   Id.

     We note that petitioner claimed respondent’s employees

mistreated him, respondent’s employees violated his civil rights,

and that his credit rating was adversely affected by the filing

of the lien.   Petitioner did not cite or rely on any specific
                                 - 4 -

statute as a basis for these claims, and we generally have no

jurisdiction over such matters.     Id.     If petitioner meant to make

a section 7433 claim, which provides for up to $1 million in

civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions, we

note that such claims must be brought in a District Court of the

United States.   Sec. 7433(a); Chocallo v. Commissioner, supra.

     Petitioner has received all the relief to which he is

entitled under sections 6320 and 6330.       Accordingly, we shall

grant the motion and shall dismiss this case as moot.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                              An appropriate order of

                                         dismissal will be entered

                                         granting respondent’s motion

                                         to dismiss on the ground of

                                         mootness.
