UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington , DC 20217 

Marcus S. Patriot                    )
  Petitioner,                        )           Docket No. 6636-xx
                                     )
      Vs.                            )
                                     )           Motion for Rehearing
Commissioner of IRS                  )
  Respondent,                        )

Pursuit to Rule 161, Petitioner hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated January 18, 2008 pertaining to the Order to Show Cause by Judge Thomas B. Wells dated December 21, 2007:

  1. On _________Petitioner filed his belated Response to the Stipulations of the Commissioner. On January 18, 2008 this court issued its order granting the Respondent’s Motion to declare the stipulations of the Commissioner as accepted as fact.
  2. The Judge fell for a trick of the District Counsel’s office, as explained below. Therefore, taxpayer request that this court recall the said order and grant taxpayer relief from excessive pleadings from the tax service with unlimited recourses
  3. District Counsel is using the stipulations incorrectly and turning this procedure into a harassment tool against a pro se litigant who has no legal training or experience.
    Stipulations are designed to be used when the parties have already communicated and reached an agreement on the items to be stipulated. In this case and others similar, District Counsel has not communicated with Petitioner at all and no agreement has been reached.
    Yet the skilled tax attorney for the tax service uses a format that is unsuitable for pro se litigants and impossible to be used when the tax victim is expected to exercise his Constitutional right to remain silent. . In the case of Richard L. Clark vs. CIR, docket # 11384-06, Tax Court Judge Mary Ann Cohen ruled that the stipulations were unnecessary burden on a pro se litigant.
  4. Therefore, this entire procedure or format would be abolished except in cases where the taxpayer has retained a tax professional and this process is used in a way as it is intended.
  5. Taxpayer filed a response in the format that was understandable to all, answered the stipulations factually and was a much better format than the District Counsel’s office uses. The IRS attorney’s department is using Stipulation s in an unreasonable format.
    The skilled tax professionals objected not tot the answers of the stipulations but to the format of tax victim’s response. The response form met the requirements of the law and was appropriate under the circumstances. The District Counsel sought from this Judge a forced argument to their stipulations by subterfuge, deceit and placing taxpayer is an untenable position.
  6. Once taxpayer’s response to stipulations was filed, the said motion or issue is moot. Therefore, that motion should have been denied. Petitioner is entitled to use the form or format of his response as he wants to, as long as it is proper. br> Petitioner is unable to use the carbon copies sent to him by District Counsel because it has no place for him to deny and also to claim his privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner in his response to stipulation uses a format which is suitable for someone who denies stips and exercises his Constitutional Rights.
  7. The highly educated District Counsel with unlimited resources is using the stipulation of the facts to browbeat and harasses taxpayers who are struggling with this court procedure in the first place. District Counsel is using the stipulations incorrectly and turning this procedure into a harassment tool against a pro se litigant who has no legal training or experience.
  8. Once his response to stipulations is filed, this motions or issue is moot. Therefore, this motion should be denied. Petitioner is entitled to use the form or format of his response as he wants to, as long as it is proper.
    Petitioner is unable to use the carbon copies sent to him by District Counsel because it has no place for him to deny and also to claim his privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner in his response to stipulation uses a format standard for motions.
    Apparently the District Counsel office does not appreciate petitioner’s format. Well, the DC is using an unworkable format which needs to be altered by the court.
  9. In conclusion, the procedure for stipulation from the DC office should be radically changed or abolished.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly on this date a copy to opposing council.

__________________________ January 30, 2008

Marcus Patriot
1776 Patriot Way
Gastonia, NC