United States Tax Court
Rhonda Patriot ) Petitioner ) Docket No. 3225-0 v. ) ) Motion for New Trial COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Respondent )
Pursuant to Rule 162 Petitioner above named hereby files her Motion for a New Trial of the Court’s order dated April 22, 2008 on the following grounds:
1. The Court fined an innocent citizen $10,000 because she is not a lawyer or CPA and does not understand courtroom procedure. Penalty should be set aside. On page 4 line 22 et seq the court found that “Petitioner filed a document with Respondent entitled Affidavit of Income Tax Non-Liability”.
District Counsel’s assertion is not true, and Petitioner asserts the contrary. She filed said statement attached to her tax return years ago which is not part of this case. The IRS says her tax return was a nullity and does not exist in any legal manner. Therefore, it cannot be part of this case.
Said affidavit was not submitted to the court by Petitioner but was submitted by District Counsel. If a penalty should be issued, then it should be enforced against District Counsel.
2. Petitioner admits that said affidavit is classified by the IRS and Tax Court as frivolous and groundless.
3. In paragraph 7 of his Motion for Penalties dated March 17, 2008, District Counsel does not clearly state that this affidavit was filed years ago as an attachment to Petitioner’s tax return, even though this paragraph deals with her tax return. The government has not presented any proof that Petitioner submitted any frivolous positions in tax court.
For filing false information with the court and misleading the judge, District Counsel should be penalized $10,000.
4. Petitioner agrees that the §6673 penalties are necessary for the orderly disposition of cases and that the Honorable Court has the authority to impose it. Petitioner also agrees that said affidavit is classified as frivolous and groundless by the IRS and tax court. Petitioner just denies that she filed this document in tax court.
District Counsel has not listed one single frivolous statement or position asserted by taxpayer in this tax court case. The Judge’s penalty decision is not supported by the facts and should be withdrawn.
5. In his Motion for Penalties filed on March 18, for the hearing on the same day, District Counsel did not give Petitioner enough time to study and respond. Motions must be delivered a minimum of four days in advance and generally filed 21 days in advance. Petitioner did not have time to file an opposition before her trial. District Counsel did not even give Petitioner a copy. The first Petitioner saw this document was as an attachment to the judge’s instant order. The court has no jurisdiction to rule on ex parte orders except on emergency basis.
6. Petitioner showed up in court to testify, introduce her documents and to present her witnesses. However the Judge did not allow her to testify or present evidence. Further her witness who was sitting next to her was removed from the courtroom and ordered by the trial judge to stay out of the court-house. Therefore she was denied a witness who had driven a long way to support her. See letter of Robert Clarkson to Judge Wells dated March 31, 2008 attached.
7. Dr. Clarkson has never advocated any argument that has been classified as frivolous and groundless and had nothing to do with Petitioner’s tax return that contained an affidavit classified as frivolous. Dr. Clarkson also had nothing to do with Petitioner’s penalty for the previous case (Docket 21747-04L) and in fact advised her otherwise.
8. The night before Petitioner’s current case was due in court, in an ex parte conversation, District Counsel bad mouthed Robert Clarkson extensively to an otherwise neutral judge. Clarkson denies that he has ever advocated any argument classified as frivolous and none of the large number of people he has assisted have ever been penalized for such.
Removing Petitioner’s witness from the courtroom was unjustified, illegal, unwarranted and based upon false ex parte statements to the Judge from a mean-spirited District Counsel.
9. This honorable court also removed from the courtroom taxpayer’s clerical assistance. Taxpayer is unfamiliar with the court processes and its myriad of paperwork. She had a great and dire need for clerical assistance. Petitioner was hopeless without someone helping her with the documentation.
Her clerical assistant has served as such in hundreds of other cases including in tax court with nary a problem. The standard now is for pro se litigants to have an assistant sit at the table with them. Taxpayers represent themselves in 80% or more of tax cases. Throughout history the self represented always had some assistance. Petitioner is a sweet, kindly grandmother who is hopelessly lost in all court matters.
10. On the other hand, the wise and able tax attorney for the opposing party had at his table, his supervisor who is even more experienced and presumably able. He also had six other District Counselors within arm’s reach to assist him. The courtroom was packed with able and experienced revenue agents.
11. Removing Petitioner’s clerical assistant/witness was a serious error and merits a new trial.
12. Petitioner submitted her Affidavit of Expenses and Deductions under oath, dated March 18, 2008. This was a true and correct statement of such and Petitioner was entitled to those deductions and medical expenses.
13. As stated before, Taxpayer was not a CPA or tax lawyer, did not understand complicated tax law, did not have the records to substantiate the deductions and was entitled to use the Cohen rule.
14. Petitioner answered the IRS’ Stipulations of Fact truthfully and honestly to the best of her knowledge on February 29, 2008. Taxpayer could not remember all the facts due to the stress that the rude and bullying District Counsel has caused her.
15. The District Counsel used his Stipulations to bludgeon an elderly pro se litigant. Stipulations are to be agreed upon in advance and then signed by both parties to memorialize the agreement. However District Counsel refused to cooperate.
16. Petitioner submitted her stipulations to District Counsel but he ignored them. The Commissioner refused to answer the Stipulations submitted by Petitioner dated February 23, 2008 and Commissioner should be sanctioned for refusing to cooperate.
17. Respondent only produced hearsay evidence and did not meet his burden of proof. This court ruled that IRS transcripts are to be accepted as fact when everyone knows the IRS makes many mistakes. Taxpayer met the requirements of §7491(a) and therefore the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.
18. For these reasons the penalty under IRC §6673 is unwarranted, unjustified and should be rescinded.
19. Decision in this case is unwarranted and should be recalled and Petitioner granted a new trial.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
______________________________ Date: May 20, 2008
Rhonda Patriot
Danielsville GA 30633