UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                 for the Fourth Circuit

 Henry R. Patriot                        )
     Appellant - Petitioner              )    Court of Appeals NO.  06-1xxx	
                                         )    Tax Court NO. 110xxx, 20xxx
   vs.                                   )                   
                                         )    Attachment to Informal Brief
Commissioner of Internal Revenue         ) 
    Appellee - Respondent                )   
_________________________________________)

Appellant - Petitioner hereby files his Attachment to Informal Brief, dated the same as this. Petitioner appeals the decision of the U.S. Tax Court dated July 10, 2006, Final Order dated July 24, 2006 and the denial of his Motion for Rehearing dated August 8, 2006.

1. Appellant is 87 years old, in poor health and unable to proceed in this case. Further, his wife is older, and in much worse health, senile and was in a nursing home on the date of this case. Additionally several years ago Petitioner had a house fire and all of his papers were destroyed.

2. The IRS is a bullying, out of control agency that takes advantage of elderly citizens who cannot defend themselves or afford high priced council. District Council knew from the beginning that Petitioner was aged, partially senile and not competent to handle the complexities of tax litigations. The Trial Judge was most considerate and kind to Petitioner, but made some errors.

3. Petitioner contests the imposition of the frivolous penalty under IRC 6673 because he did not file any frivolous or unacceptable pleadings. However, Petitioner was confused following his testimony when the Judge disallowed the reading of his only evidence. Therefore he stated verbally his opinions about the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner admits he made verbal statements that in the past have been found by the Courts to be frivolous.

4. Unfortunately for the IRS, the penalty provisions of IRC 6673 only pertain to pleadings and written material, not verbal opinions.

5. Petitioner did not file tax returns for the years in question because he was retired and did not meet the filing threshold. Petitioner was entitled to the standard deduction, deduction for himself and also his dependent wife. Taken together Petitioner did not make enough taxable income according to the IRS to be required to file or pay taxes. However, Petitioner’s papers were lost in the house fire.

6. Nevertheless, Petitioner testified under oath at the trial in Tax Court. His statements under oath about his deductions were not disproved by the IRS and therefore should be taken as fact. Unfortunately District Council asked the 87-year-old man for his wife Lee’s Social Security Number that Petitioner did not know.

7. After the trial, Petitioner produced her Social Security number and the date of the marriage. However, Petitioner should not have to prove known and undisputable facts, this was purely harassment by the District Council.

8. Internal Revenue Code is so complex and confusing that no one knows what it says or what it means. Petitioner may have raised “tax protestor type arguments” decades ago but did not use any in his pleadings in this case, or even mention, or using such arguments.

9. After Petitioner’s testimony after he left the stand, after bullying and harassment by District Council, Petitioner petitioned the Trial Court for help. Petitioner was obviously confused, mentally exhausted and somewhat distressed by the bullying. Consequently Petitioner admits he made statements that the Courts have held frivolous, after his testimony was completed.

10. The Tax Court fined Petitioner $750 for frivolous penalties under IRC 6673 (a) (1), which only provides for penalties for improper pleadings. Petitioner could find no published decisions on verbal statements during Tax Court proceedings. Therefore, this fine should be rescinded.

11. The Internal Revenue Code is beyond comprehension by the majority of the people. The middle income working people are simply unable to hire high-priced council, therefore the IRS auditors and lawyers are able to brow-beat middle income taxpayers, take advantage of them and in effect steal their hard earned monies.

12. In this case Petitioner was too old to protect his interests and the District Council was able to make maximum use of the overwhelming advantages of the government. Judge Wells in general was considerate and fair-minded to Petitioner and the other pro-se litigants but on this matter allowed himself to be bullied by an aggressive IRS lawyer.

13. Tax Court also fined partially senile Petitioner under IRC 6651 for failure to file and did not relieve Petitioner of the addition to tax even though he demonstrated the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

14. Petitioner should not be penalized for failure to file because for the years in question he was not required to file, but unfortunately was not able to prove that in tax court. Additionally for the years in question Petitioner was aged, not mentally agile and without any of his papers due to a house fire.

15. Regardless of Petitioner’s political opinions, he did not raise any Constitutional or “tax protestor” arguments concerning his reasons for not filing his returns. Not one word of “tax protestor arguments” was raised in Petitioner’s pleadings. Petitioner only mentioned such issues briefly after his testimony while returning to his seat after being bullied by District Council. However IRC §6673 is not valid for actions such as Petitioner’s.

16. Through numerous letters to the IRS Petitioner pleaded and begged for years to settle this case. At trial the Administrative Law Judge could easily see that Petitioners was aged, feeble, confused and unable to represent himself. The amount of money involved in the case is not enough to hire an attorney even if Petitioner had the money to retain council, which he does not.

17. All of Petitioner’s pleadings in this case have been in the proper format and have been respectful to the honor and dignity of these courts. The Tax Court seemed concerned about Petitioner’s political opinions, however these were hold opinions and to join political organizations.

18. Petitioner in entitled to deductions on account of large church donations, unreimbursed business expenses, etc. However the lower Court did not allow any of this because Petitioner’s paperwork was destroyed in a house fire and he was too aged and confused to present his facts clearly.

 ___________________________                        Date: October 18, 2006
 Henry R. Patriot, Pro Se
150 Rolling Green Circle
Greenville, SC  29615

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly in a postage paid wrapper a copy of this pleading to:
Eileen J. O’Connor, ESQ
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
P.O. Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044

Donald L. Korb, ESQ
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constituion Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20224          
                                                       
                                                                                       
 ___________________________                         Date: October 18, 2006
 Henry R. Patriot, Pro Se
150 Rolling Green Circle
Greenville, SC  29615