US TAX COURT
                                           
Cedric                     ) Docket No. 2425x-xx,
            Petitioner     ) 1704x-xx,
                           ) and 1860x-xx
                           )
   V.                      ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
                           ) BY RESPONDENT
CIR                        )
            Respondent     )

Petitioner hereby files his Opposition to the Motion to Show Cause dated November 8th, 2007from the Commissioner dealing with proposed facts, in these three consolidated cases.

1. Taxpayer is now in full compliance with all of the discovery requests of the Commissioner, albeit somewhat tardy. Therefore this Show Cause is not needed.

2. Taxpayer was unable to respond within the allotted time limits because the IRS malfeasance confused him. The tax service sent him two SNODs for tax year 2003 which is a calamity to a pro se litigant. District Counsel refused to consolidate these three cases until recently which placed a terrible burden on taxpayer and confused him. Because of the government’s bad deeds, taxpayer did not meet the known time requirements.

3. The stipulations and other discovery sought by this motion to be accepted as fact should in real life be denied. Taxpayer’s heretofore filed responses to discovery should be accepted. This court will note that Taxpayer’s responses were full and detailed even though it denied most of what the government requested.

4. For all three cases, Ms. Fitzgerald’s letters of September 26th, 2007 (attached to said Motions to Show Cause) lists her proposed stipulations of facts. These stipulations are significantly different than the real stipulations she sent later to him.

In fact, the proposed stipulations are incomprehensible and repetitive. Nobody could understand what she means. Taxpayer with no legal training is dreadfully confused by District Counsel’s work.

5. District Counsel attached to the Show Cause Motion for Docket # 1704xxx a copy of the SNOD for tax year 2003. Petitioner hereby admits that document and will not object to it’s admission in the forthcoming trial. However for the other years, District Counsel did not send him an Admission of Documents for the 90-day letter and therefore Petitioner objects the admission of any other NODs.

6. The Commissioner admitted many times that the SNOD was incorrect because it did not have the correct penalties. The Commissioner withdrew the penalty under IRC~6651(a) (2), which he should have done. However the Commissioner tried to add increased deficiency under RRC~6651 (a) (1), which cannot be done and which he did not do correctly.

The 90-day letter is the Commissioner’s final statement and once issued cannot be changed expect for dire and emergency reasons. District Counsel did not list any compelling reason to amend the SNOD and in fact none exist.

7. Therefore the Commissioner’s request should not be granted. Petitioner requests an out of court settlement from the tax service with credit to him for his business expenses and waiver of penalties.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to the Respondent at his or her proper mail addresses.

________________________              Date: November 26, 2007
Cedric 
Madison, GA 30650