United States Tax Court
Henry Patriot, )
Petitioner, )
) Docket Nos. 1106xxx, 208xxx
v. ) Motion for Rehearing
)
CIR, )
Respondent )
__________________________________)
Petitioner, hereby files this Motion for Reconsideration from the Court’s order dated July 10, 2006, based on the following reasons:
1. Petitioner appreciates the Judge’s kind demeanor at the hearing and his consideration of this case.
2. One serious mistake has been made that needs to be resolved. The docket number of this case shows that this case consists of two separate cases. The first case is petition to the tax court in reference to a 90-Day Letter dated, ____________. This case consists of Petitioner’s dispute of the deficiencies in tax and addition to tax in tax years 98-2002.
This case was argued before the court in Columbia South Carolina on _______________. This case was also the subject of Respondent’s many motions and of course oppositions by Petitioner. The Court’s Order solely dealt with this tax deficiency case without any mention of the other case.
The docket sheet for the said hearing in Columbia stated that both cases would be on the calendar to be heard by the Tax Court Judge on that day. However, the Judge or the Attorney for the IRS made not one argument about the CDPH case.
3. However Petitioner or his Clerical assistant did bring up this matter and the District Council did acknowledge that an appeal on the CDPH had been filed. Also Petitioner did mention this in an earlier pleading in this court. [Date if you can find it]
4. The second case, docket number is an appeal on an adverse decision on a CDPH. Petitioner has filed this properly, in the proper format, raising issues that are acceptable to the Court and filed it timely. This case is ready for consideration by this court.
However, no mention of this CDPH case is in the record except as noted above. Yet, the note at the bottom of page one of MEMORANDUM OPINION state that these cases were consolidated for trial, briefing and opinion. See Consolidation Order dated ________. However, nobody briefed this subject, it was not mentioned in essence at trial and not mentioned in the Court’s said Opinion.
5. However, this order lists said docket number and therefore this decision pertains to Petitioner’s CDPH case. However, Petitioner has no idea what happened to this case, his noting of this has been ignored, and the Court needs to make some decision.
6. Petitioner is 88 years old and in very poor health and needs to resolve these issues with deliberate speed.
7. Petitioner requests that this court issue a new order pertaining to the CDPH case after briefs, appropriate hearings and normal procedure.
8. The penalties in this case should be waived because Petitioner has complied with all of the proper procedures in Tax Court and none of his pleadings have any arguments or words associated with “tax protestors.” If Petitioner brought up these issues years ago or verbally, he hereby withdraws them.
9. The Internal Revenue Code is extremely complex and confusing. Petitioner, a loyal American Citizen has done his best to comply with the IRC and the IRS, but said things that the Tax Court and the IRS dispute. However, he did make great efforts and paid money for tax advice and did not realize this advice was unpopular with the IRS and Tax Court.
10. Petitioner Clearly stated that his house burned down and he did not have any records
Therefore, the penalties should be waived.
11. Also, the Judge penalized Petitioner $1500 under Section 6673, however the Court should withdraw this because Petitioner did not raise in his pleadings any frivolous or groundless positions. Further, Petitioner pleaded and begged the IRS for settlement in this case as is shown in his numerous letters to the IRS.
At said hearing, this court could clearly see that Petitioner was aged, feeble, confused and procedurally incorrect. The amount of money is not enough to hire a lawyer, even if Petitioner had money to retain council, which he does not. This Court was considerate enough of Petitioner to allow his clerical assistant to help him openly, which Petitioner appreciates. However, Petitioner was too old and confused to fully utilize the Court’s consideration.
12. This Court must admit that all of Petitioner’s pleadings in this case have been in the proper format and respectful to the honor and dignity of the court event though he has political opinions opposed to the IRS and its affiliates. As stated above, none of Petitioner’s pleadings before this administrative tribunal have raised any arguments classified as political.
13. Petitioner, an American citizen, has the Constitutional right to affiliate or join any political organization.
Petitioner requests that this court reconsider the penalties awarded for the reasons stated above.
14. Petitioner was entitled to his deductions for church donations which are relatively large, unreimbursed business expenses and finally to file as married head of household or to file jointly with his wife. However the court did not allow any of that because Petitioner’s papers were all destroyed in a house fire and he was too aged to present his papers correctly and he should not have to prove by documentary evidence what is well known and accepted. His wife did not file and he was entitled to receive some tax benefit for being married.
Further the IRS should have accepted his pleas to settle rather than bullying an aged citizen. If Petitioner had been able to receive credit for his church donations and his wife, he would not owe any taxes and not be required to file. This also means he would not have any penalties.
15. Petitioner clearly stated this was his second wife, as his first wife had died a few years previous to his second marriage. Therefore, Petitioner was entitled to claim the filing status of surviving spouse for tax years ________________ and _________________.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.
______________________ Date: July 27, 2006 Henry R. Link Greenville, SC 29615