US TAX COURT 

Julie Patriot                           )				  		 
	Petitioners,                    )                    DOCKET #	10600-06	
					)		                      
     V.                                 )   
					)	           Motion for Reconsideration	
Commissioner Internal Revenue           )             
       Respondent                       )  

Pursuant to Rule 161 and 162, Petitioner moves for Reconsideration and moves for a New Trial based on the following grounds:

  1. Petitioner is entitled to assistance of a tax professional. Petitioner hired a new accountant to represent her at trial. However this court ejected her CPA from the hearing without cause or notice. The record does not reveal any wrong-doing by her newly retained counsel to justify removing him from the case. Her request for a continuance due to this was justified and should have been granted.
  2. Her representative is a qualified and licensed CPA and therefore entitled to practice before the Tax Court. The court failed to give him time to be admitted to practice which is a perfunctory procedure and always granted.
  3. Petitioner is neither a CPA nor lawyer and previously hired a tax professional to fill out her tax returns. However he advised her in a manner that is not considered legal by the IRS and tax court. Her tax previous advisor is now in jail for giving erroneous tax advice. However, non-lawyer taxpayer did not know his method was unacceptable to the tax authorities. Taxpayer should not be punished for relying on advice of a counselor.
  4. Upon advice of retained former tax advisor, taxpayer did not retain all the records that are necessary to prove her case. Therefore, taxpayer sought to resolve this case under the Cohen doctrine.
    This case shows that in tax court you can use reasonable figures, instead of figures conjured by the IRS that cannot be correct. You can also reconstruct lost paperwork to substantiate your deductions and business expenses.
    Further, you can claim a percentage of business expenses and profit for a business enterprise, even if you have no records to substantiate your business expenses. For example, a plumbing subcontractor could claim as expenses 60% of gross receipts from the form 1099s that the IRS received from the contractors.
    The 9th Circuit Court ruled in Cohen v. CIR, 266 F 2d 5(1959):
    ''We think our only proper course is to approach the problem indirectly by analysis of the record in the light of the principles established in Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). Our objective will be, after resolving any reasonable doubts against petitioner, to reconstruct his gross income as betting commissioner at a figure which in our judgment it would be unlikely to exceed in fact. (Petitioner, it is clear, has failed to establish a lesser amount.)''
    The purpose of the IRS is to collect taxes, not to browbeat hard-working citizens who are unable to keep records because they struggle to make a living and work hard at distant locations. Due to her profession and hectic work schedule of delivering babies on a moment’s notice, the tax victim is unable to maintain all the records that you seek.
    However, we all know that the taxpayer did incur large expenses for her business. Let us figure out what the law says the tax victim owes so she can start paying. Taxpayer is a sole practitioner obstetrician who takes home a net 20% of her gross. The 20/80 split is well-known, accepted by everybody and undisputed.
  5. Under §1366, the S corporation shareholder shall take into account her pro rata share of the S corporation’s income and business expenses. Therefore this court should accept tax payer’s pro-offer 20/80 pro rata.
  6. The §6662 penalty is unfair and unjust because taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and good faith. Unfortunately her previous tax advisor is considered by the IRS a fraud and a convict.
  7. The HIPPA law precluded her from presenting any evidence or records related to her clients.
  8. The §6673 penalty is also unfair, unwarranted and unjust plus the amount was way out of line even if Petitioner did those things she is accused of, which she did not.
  9. Petitioner did not put forth any frivolous or groundless arguments as published by the IRS on their website. This accusation is totally false.
  10. No one disputes that taxpayer had business expenses and she has a right to assert the Cohen doctrine without punishment.
  11. The Burden of proof relies on the Commissioner. §7491 places the burden on the government if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence, has cooperated with District Counsel, etc. Respondent has produced no credible evidence that the burden of proof has shifted back to the taxpayer.
  12. In Conclusion a Reconsideration is warranted for the above reasons.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent to properly to opposing council.
___________________________
Dr. Julie Patriot, Petitioner Pro se
Bridgeport, West Virginia 26330

Date: May 2, 2008