Anthony Oropeza, Petitioner

T .C . Memo . 2009-24 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT, ,

ANTHONY OROPEZA, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ,' ' Responden t Docket No . 29151-07L .

Filed Oct°ober' 28, ' 2009 . , Anthony Oropeza, pro se .

Michael W . Tan , for respondent .- `MEMORANDUM OPINIO N HOLMES, Judge- Anthony Oropeza earned wages in 2002 and 2003 but reported zero income and zero tax liabilities because, he wrote in attachments to the returns, .his income was,not "income" in the "constitutional" sense . Mr . Oropeza's position is, in a word, "frivolous ." Just like we held it was the las t

SERVED OCT 2 8 .2009

2 - time he was in Tax Court . See Oropeza v . Commissioner , T .C .

Memo . 2008-94 .

The Commissioner issued notices of deficiency for both years, but Mr . Oropeza did not petition our Court . The ..Commissioner then assessed the taxes and penalties asserted in the notices . Mr . Oropezd didn't pay . The bureaucracy's wheel s clanked into gear, and in March 2006 out-came a notice of inten t to levy . Mr . Oropeza requested a face-to-face collection du e process (CDP) hearing that he planned to record . In his reques t he specifically renounced any of his previous arguments that the .

Commissioner might consider frivolous, and asked only .that th e IRS verify that it had followed all required procedures .

The'IRS Appeals=officer did just that . He then sent Mr .

Oropeza a Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters . The Form 4340 is "a computer-generated list of assessments, payments, and-other activity-on a taxpayer's account . The Appeals officer also explained that face-to-face hearings were reserved for . discussions of .nonfrivolous issues .

He even listed several nonfrivolous issues Mr . Oropeza might ' raise, and pointed him to an IRS websiteHlisting frivolou s arguments should Mr . Oropeza want to learn the distinction . Th e Appeals of ficer gave Mr .' Orope'za until October 5, 2007, to submi t w additional information and setup a telephone hearing for th e following week .

I l 3 - Oropeza responded only by . asking for copies' of paperwork ' he'd alreadyasent in . After the hearing, `, the Appeals officer again patiently. gave Mr . : Oropeza ,a chance -to raise any nonfriv o lous issue .

He,didn't discuss any collection alternatives'b e cause Mr.. 'Oropeza didn't ° raise the issue, didn'-t ~ provide any ' fi- nancial information, and hadn't filed his . -2004', 2005, or 2006 tax` returns . Mr :" Oropeza told ;~the Appeals officer . ='to -go `ahead'and .

issue thenotice of-determination and he would see him 'in .court .

The Appeals, officer : accepted Mr .'~ Oropeza'--s suggestion' ;. Mr .

Oropeza ;followed through on ' his .threat . The parties ` ; submitte d the case .for'decision--under-?Tax : Court Rule 122 ; 'just before .trial , ti.

was to start 'in Los Angeles . „w Mr . Oropeza` was- a Californi a resident when he filed -his petition .- Mr . Oropeza raises . for -the first `time `in our Court the issue, Mr .

of whether he ireceived any .of-"the :notices- of deficiency that-th e IRS sent to him .' If he intends by this to argue,that he doesn't} owe :the underlying liabilities;'he can't because -he stipulated that .he wasn',t' challenging" .the amounts --of his tax-liabilitie :he . doesn't intend,-this .-he can't raise this new ;issue s And even if on appeal . See Magana v . . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 488 (2002) .

We review the Appeals officer's determination for abuse o f discretion .

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

also look to .see whether the Appeals officer verified that the IRS met its .legal'and procedural requirements, for making an assessment, considered : issues that the . taxpayer, raised, . and balanced . the need for efficient tax collection against the taxpayer's interest .that any colrlection action be no more intrusive than necessary ;., 26 U .S . .'C . sec . 6330(c),(3 ) There are no problems here . ' Appeals, officers, may rely on 'a Form 4340 to show that the IRS followed the : law : and procedure s for a valid assessment .

; Davis V . Commissioner ,-115 T .C . 35, .- 40-41 (2000) . : They may rely,.on nothing but that .f.orm where, a s here, a ,taxpayer has no,evidence of_,any procedural-irregularity .

Nicklaus-v . .-Commissioner,', 117- T .C . 117,, 121 (2001) . And Mr .

Oropeza gives us no reason to(cid:127)upset the Appeals officer,'s conclusion that a , levy is appropriate--Mr ., .Oropeza did not suggest any collection alternatives to,balance against : the government's , interest wing .efficient tax collection .

We also~reject :Mr . Oropeza's procedural arguments . . Taxpay-.

ers who make,-only frivolous arguments aren't entitled to .face- -to-face hearings .

Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 183, 189 .

(2001) . , Taxpayers,who .make no .arguments . are likewise not enti- ; tled'to a face-to-face hearing .

Oropeza , T .C . . .Memo 2008-94 .

I And Mr . Oropeza has no right to record because 26 U .S .C . section 7521(a)(1) refers, to "any in-person interview" and thus doesn't apply to telephone hearings .

Calafati v . Commissioner , 127 T .C .

219 (2006)_ Decision will . be entered for respondent .