90 day letter

                                                                 US TAX COURT 
                                                                 WASHINGTON DC

Julie Patriot,                      )				  		 
                Petitioner,         )         DOCKET #3036-08
                                    )		                      
     v.                             )         Petition for Redetermination
                                    )         of a Deficiency    
Commissioner Internal Revenue,      )         (The 90 Day Letter) 
                Respondent.         )           
____________________________________)

1. Petitioner hereby files her Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency (The 90 Day Letter).

2. Petitioner disagrees with the Determination contained in the Notice of Deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service issued for the year ending December 31, 2004 as set forth in such notice dated November 13, 2007. A copy of which is attached.

3. Taxpayer identification number is xxx-xx-xxxx.

4. Petitioner requests the following relief for the following reasons:

A. The Petitioner requests the Notice of Deficiency be re-determined and her correct tax liability (if any) be determined.

B. Petitioner denies she has any tax liability, and disputes the figures and the contents of the NOD above listed. Petitioner disagrees with the computations, statements and conclusions in the said 90 Day Letter.

See attachment incorporated herein by reference.

5. Petitioner requests that this case be conducted under the regular tax court procedures. Petitioner does NOT want this case conducted as a “small tax case” procedures. X

_________________________________
Dr. Julie Patriot
Bridgeport, WV 26330-1367

February 1, 2008

Attachment to Tax Court Petition

X A. The Petitioner requests the Notice of Deficiency be re-determined and his correct tax liability (if any) be determined.

X B. This case is ready for settlement. I request a settlement conference with Appeals, etc.

X C. Petitioner denies she has any tax liability, and disputes the figures and the contents of the NOD above listed. Petitioner disagrees with the computations, statements and conclusions in the said 90 Day Letter.

X D. For the tax years in question, Petitioner had dependents, deductions, business expenses, credits, allowances, tax preparation/advice expenses, charitable donations, etc. Further the filing status in the NOD is incorrect.

X E. The 1099s and W-2 forms information and other statements of income on the NOD are incorrect, false, or appears that way to me. I do not have information to substantiate the income figures alleged by the IRS. Apparently the figures used by the IRS stem from illegal immigrants who have gained, through identity theft, my Social Security Number for their employment.

X F. Petitioner requests waiver and abatement of all penalties. The Internal Revenue Code is so complex and confusing no one can understand it or comply with its multitudinous provisions.

X G. Petitioner requests credit for the illegal telephone excise tax of $200 for each year in question.

X H. Petitioner requests deductions and credits for cost and expenses of tax preparation and advise on filing. Petitioner incurred deductible expenses for a tax return preparation including books, DVDs, travel, etc.

X I. Due to lack of records, Petitioner needs to reconstitute records and provide reasonable estimations of business expenses as provided for in the Cohen case, below. This case shows that the tax court can use reasonable figures when records do not exist. The taxpayer can also reconstruct lost paperwork to substantiate deductions and business expenses.

Further the taxpayer can claim a percentage of business expenses and profit for a business enterprise, even if he has no records to substantiate his business expenses. For example, a plumbing subcontractor could claim as expenses 60% of 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.)”