Robert J. Guadagno, Petitioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge : This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion for summary judgment (respondent's motion) .' We shall grant respondent's motion .

'Although the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion, he failed to do so .

MAR 2 0 2007

Order and to pay the filing fee of $60 on or before November 15, 2002 . The September 16, 2002 Order in the case at docket No .

14560-02 further provided that if an amended petition and the filing fee were not received on or before November 15, 2002, the Court would dismiss the case at docket No . 14560-02 or take such other action as the Court deemed appropriate . Petitioner did not file a response to the Court's September 16, 2002 Order in the case at docket No . 14560-02 . As a result, on March 4, 2003, the Court entered an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in that case .

On September 20, 2004, respondent assessed petitioner's tax and the additions to tax determined in the notice relating to petitioner's taxable years 1995 and 1998, as well as interest as provided for law, for each of those years . (We shall refer to those assessed amounts, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after September 20, 2004, as petitioner's unpaid liabili- ties for 1995 and 1998 . ) Respondent issued to petitioner the notice and demand for payment required by section 6303(a) with respect to his unpaid liabilities for 1995 and 1998 .

On October 31, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to his taxable years 1995 and 1998 . On or about November 30, 2005, in response to the

BRIEF BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2006, Settlement Officer Elissa Dellosso sent you a letter giving you an opportunity for a telephonic hearing for March 9, 2006 . You were advised in that letter that the underlying liability issue that was raised in your CDP request was precluded from this hearing, but that she would consider other collection alternatives . Ms . Dellosso sent you a Collection Information Statement to prepare and send back to her by February 21, 2006 . She did not receive it . On March 6, 2006 you requested a postponement and a face to face hearing, which was granted . On March 15, 2006 you appeared in her office and she conducted a face-to- face hearing with you . You did not submit the Collec- tion Information Statement and stated you wanted an- other postponement because you had just hired a firm to represent you . This request was denied because you had sufficient time to obtain representation prior to the original scheduled hearing date .

1 . Verification - Legal and Procedural Requirement s a . General Verification Requirement s The assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for the 12/31/1995 and 12/31/1998 tax periods . A statutory notice of deficiency was mailed to you via Certified Mail on June 10, 2002 . The administrative file shows that on August 22, 2002 the US Tax Court ordered you to perfect the petition and pay the fee by 11/15/2002 . You did not do so and the Court dismissed your case .

The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to your current address, within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303 .

There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was requested .

Ms . Dellosso verified the collection period allowed by statute to collect these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes for the tax periods at issue .

There was no pending bankruptcy at the time the notices were issued .

and interest) [sic] on * * * 1995 & 1998 taxes, less the $3449 * * * already paid and not the $82,874 .19 the I .R .S . claims" .

Discussion The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the decision may be rendered as a matter of law . Rule 121(b) ; Sundstrand Corp . v . Commis- sioner , 98 T .C . 518, 520 (1992), affd . 17 F .3d 965 (7th Cir .

1994) . We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent's motion .

Petitioner received from respondent a notice of deficiency with respect to his taxable years 1995 and 1998 . Petitioner submitted a document with respect to that notice that the Court had filed as a petition and that commenced the case at docket No .

14560-02 . However, petitioner failed to respond to the Court's September 16, 2002 Order in the case at docket No . 14560-02, in which the Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition and to pay a filing fee on or before November 15, 2002 .

As a result, on March 4, 2003, the Court entered an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in that case . We conclude that petitioner may not dispute the respective underlying tax liabilities for his taxable years for 1995 and 1998 .

Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue