Debra Patriot, Pro se )
Petitioner ) Docket No. 00000-00
v. )
) Motion for Reconsideration
Commissioner of Internal Revenue ) and New Trial
Responder )
Pursuant to Rule 161 and 162 of the Rules for Tax Court, Petitioner Debra Patriot, hereby files this motion for Reconsideration and New Trial of the Order and Decision of Judge Thomas B. Wells dated March 19, 2008, based on the following reasons:
1. Petitioner was unable to make an appointment with the IRS Counsel for a personal meeting with her to discuss pertinent laws, records, deductions, exemptions, and possible payment schedules.
2. Respondent refused to allow Petitioner to have meeting with him because he said Petitioner was being uncooperative and that they would see her in court.
3. Petitioner offered to settle out of court in every correspondence, but the Respondent refused to proceed with any offer, other than to request a signed 2003 1040 return with verifying documents to possibly reduce any presumed liability and eliminate the need for going to court.
4. Petitioner submitted a signed 2003 1040 return with attachments to District Counsel for filing as requested, months prior to trial, upon which a valid, legal assessment could be made. The processing of this return would have resulted in a zero liability for the Petitioner. Petitioner believes Counsel deliberately delayed the filing of this return, as is evident in having to appear in court after all.
5. Petitioner still has not received any information on when the processing of this return was executed, and believes had this been done in a timely manner, there would not have been any need to go to court in the first place, and there would be no liability upon which interest or penalties could apply.
6. Petitioner kept her Tax Court date.
7. Respondent presented a copy of their stipulations to Court and Petitioner; Judge then asked if the District Counsel had received stipulations from the Petitioner; at first, the Counsel didn’t answer, and then said they had, but that we hadn’t been able to reach an agreement on them. The Judge then asked Counsel why hadn’t an agreement been reached, and Counsel never answered. For the record, Counsel did not respond to Petitioner’s stipulations at all --- let alone try to reach an agreement.
8. Petitioner submitted her own Stipulations for IRS Counsel to answer in 30 days (as the same was first demanded by IRS Counsel of her with their Stipulations, with which she complied), or to acknowledge any specific part thereof which was not denied with valid, legal evidence to the contrary, as being truth and fact by their silence, and to be binding upon them in any court in the United States of America without objection or protest. Respondent DID NOT comply in the time allowed (and to date still has not) and therefore AGREES (by their continued silence—i.e. the law of Tacit Agreement) to everything sworn to (and signed under penalty of perjury) in Petitioner’s stipulations.
9. Petitioner made a motion for her right to have her husband speak on her behalf, as they are both Christians and believe the husband is the head of the wife; motion was denied.
10. Petitioner also was terrified and had to take Xanax to even contemplate entering the courthouse, and was in no condition to clearly understand and respond to the proceedings in order to defend herself; Court was made aware of this and still refused to give husband right to speak on wife’s behalf. However, the honorable Judge did allow husband to stand at table with wife.
11. Petitioner sent a copy of these same documents (other than the 2003 1040) to this honorable Court in several motions that the court denied; therefore, these should be included in the official public record as part of Petitioner’s pleadings.
12. The Burden of Proof of any amounts of tax, penalties, and interest due was upon the Respondent.
13.
The ONLY evidence given by the Respondent who sought to have all declarations
accepted as fact, are in fact hearsay, not substantiated, lacking
proper foundation, not certified, not notarized, etc. These figures do not
qualify for the business records acceptation to the rules against hearsay.
14. Further, the Respondent failed to establish any valid relevance to the Case she cited, Welch v. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (November 6, 1933), to the present case.
Therefore, the Petitioner respectfully requests this motion for a Reconsideration and/or New Trial be granted.
Certificate of Service: Petitioner does hereby certify that on this date, he sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
________________________________ Dated : _______________________
Debra Patriot, Pro se