                        T.C. Memo. 2007-55



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  RANDY A. BELMONT, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 8684-04L.              Filed March 7, 2007.



     Randy A. Belmont, pro se.

     Katherine Lee Kosar, for respondent.



              MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     HAINES, Judge:   Petitioner filed a petition with this Court

in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection

Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of

determination).1   Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks


     1
         Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
                                                    (continued...)
                                - 2 -

review of respondent’s determination.    The sole issue for

decision is whether respondent’s determination that collection

action could proceed for Federal income tax liabilities for 1999

was an abuse of his discretion.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     The parties’ stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.    Petitioner resided in

Lakewood, Ohio, when he filed his petition.

     On April 15, 2000, petitioner and his wife, Christina L.

Belmont, filed a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, for 1999.   The Form 1040 showed zeros on lines 7 through

22, zero adjusted gross income (line 33), zeros on lines 36

through 40, zeros on lines 48 through 56, zero total tax, Federal

income tax withholding in the amount of $839, and a claimed

refund in the amount of $839.   Petitioner attached to the 1999

Form 1040 several pages of writing in which he stated he had zero

income within the meaning of that term, and included other

frivolous tax-protester arguments, such as, the return was not

filed voluntarily, petitioner is not required to file a return,

petitioner’s earnings are not considered income under the

Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the assessment was illegal,




     1
      (...continued)
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and amounts are rounded to
the nearest dollar.
                               - 3 -

and the Internal Revenue Service is not entitled to change his

return.

     On April 4, 2001, respondent mailed petitioner a Letter CP-

2000 stating: “WE’RE PROPOSING CHANGES TO YOUR 1999 TAX RETURN”,

in which respondent proposed changes to petitioner’s 1999 return

based upon reported income from third-party payors.   In response,

by letters dated April 9 and May 15, 2001, petitioner disputed

respondent’s authority to assess tax and asserted other tax-

protester arguments.

     On June 20, 2001, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice

of deficiency for 1999, in which respondent determined that

petitioner and his wife owed a deficiency of $7,758, and a $1,552

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).   In response, by

letter dated July 27, 2001, petitioner acknowledged receipt of

the notice of deficiency and again raised tax-protester

arguments.   Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court to

redetermine the deficiency.

     Respondent assessed the tax, penalty, and interest on

October 15, 2001.   On January 8, 2003, respondent filed a Notice

of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) with the Recorder of Cuyahoga County,

Cleveland, Ohio, with respect to petitioner’s 1999 tax

liabilities, and on January 13, 2003, respondent mailed

petitioner a Letter 3172(DO) (Rev. 11-2000), Notice of Federal
                               - 4 -

Tax Lien Filing and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.    The

notice advised petitioner he was entitled to request a hearing to

appeal the collection action and to discuss optional payment

methods.   On January 27, 2003, petitioner submitted Form 12153,

Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.    In his request, he

again raised frivolous arguments.

     On July 10, 2003, respondent’s Appeals Office mailed

petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt of his case for

consideration and notifying him that he must file Federal income

tax returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002 if he wished to have

alternative collection measures considered.2    In response, by

letter dated July 31, 2003, petitioner stated that he is not

required to file tax returns in order to receive a hearing and

asserted other frivolous arguments.    By letter dated July 31,

2003, petitioner requested a face-to-face conference.    On

September 30, 2003, Settlement Officer Spencer Dolin mailed a

letter to petitioner, which stated, in part, that Appeals does

not provide a face-to-face conference if the only items to

discuss are frivolous or groundless arguments and “if you are

interested in receiving a face-to-face conference, you must be




     2
       Additionally, by letters dated Sept. 30 and Oct. 15, 2003,
Settlement Officer Spencer Dolin again advised petitioner that
all income tax returns must be filed if petitioner wished to have
alternative collection measures considered.
                                 - 5 -

prepared to discuss issues relevant to paying your tax

liability”, including collection alternatives.

     On November 26, 2003, a face-to-face conference was held,

attended by Mr. Dolin and Settlement Officer Dale Roginski and

petitioner and petitioner’s wife Christina Belmont.     Petitioner

provided a court reporter to record the hearing.

     Throughout the conference, petitioner and his wife

persistently asked Mr. Dolin to prove he had the authority to

hold the hearing, questioned whether the IRS had the authority to

issue a tax lien, and raised other frivolous arguments.     Although

Mr. Dolin attempted to explain the appeals process and discuss

collection alternatives, petitioner and wife refused to allow him

to do so.   As a result, Mr. Dolin ended the conference.

Petitioner had not filed his 2000, 2001, and 2002 Federal income

tax returns at the time of the conference.

     In the February 17, 2004, notice of determination mailed to

petitioner, Mr. Dolin determined that the filing of the NFTL was

proper and would be sustained.    Mr. Dolin found that respondent

complied with all Code and procedural requirements in filing the

NFTL.

     In response to the notice of determination, petitioner filed

a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio on March 16, 2004.      Because the District Court

lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, it dismissed the case
                               - 6 -

without prejudice on April 21, 2004.     Belmont v. United States,

93 AFTR 2d 2004-1992 (N.D. Ohio 2004).    Petitioner timely mailed

his petition to this Court on May 19, 2004, and it was filed on

May 25, 2004.   See sec. 6330(d)(1); sec. 301.6330-1(f), Proced. &

Admin. Regs.

     On March 27, 2006, petitioner filed with the Court a

response to the stipulation of facts, wherein he stated that he

no longer subscribed to his previous tax-protester arguments.

                              OPINION

     Because the underlying tax liability is not at issue, this

Court’s review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion.

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

Commissioner, 114. T.C. 176, 182 (2000).     This standard requires

the Court to decide whether respondent’s determination was

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

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

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2004-163.

     Throughout this case, petitioner presented tax-protester

arguments, including:   (1) He is not a taxpayer; (2) respondent

has no jurisdiction over him; and (3) respondent lacks authority

to assert income tax deficiencies.     Petitioner’s assertions have

been rejected by this Court and other courts, and “We perceive no

need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious
                                - 7 -

citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these

arguments have some colorable merit.”    Crain v. Commissioner, 737

F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see, e.g., Wetzel v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-211 (rejecting as frivolous the

argument that the taxpayer was not a taxpayer); Nunn v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-250 (rejecting as without merit the

argument that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction over the

taxpayer or his documents).    This Court rejects petitioner’s

tax-protester arguments as frivolous and without merit.

     Petitioner contended that Mr. Dolin concluded the conference

before collection alternatives could be discussed.    However,

throughout the entire hearing petitioner and his wife

relentlessly pursued frivolous and groundless tax protester

arguments without allowing Mr. Dolin the opportunity to discuss

any collection alternatives.    As a result, Mr. Dolin ended the

hearing.   Petitioner also testified that he did not seek

collection alternatives.

     Section 6330(c)(2)(A) permits a taxpayer to challenge the

appropriateness of the intended method of collection, offer

alternatives to collection, or raise a spousal defense to

collection.   A settlement officer is not required to prolong a

face-to-face meeting to entertain frivolous, meritless, or

groundless arguments.   See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A); Holliday v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-240; Kolker v. Commissioner, T.C.
                                 - 8 -

Memo. 2004-288; Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86,

affd. 70 Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003).    Because petitioner

raised only arguments the Tax Court has uniformly determined to

be without merit, the settlement officer appropriately concluded

the meeting.

     Petitioner’s arguments do not present justiciable issues;

they ignore established law and give no basis for his claim that

respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the Federal tax

lien.   This Court concludes that respondent’s determination to

proceed with collection of the tax liabilities assessed against

petitioner for 1999 was not an abuse of discretion.

     In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all

arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that

they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                               Decision will be

                                           entered for respondent.
