US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC

Rhonda Patriot                         	)
Petitioner                          	)	DOCKET #3225-00
       V.                               )	Reply to Answer  
Commissioner Internal Revenue           )                                              
      Respondent                        )        

Petitioner in reply to CIR Answer (dated May 11, 2007) to Amended Petition (dated March 27, 2007) admits, denies and alleges as follows:
1. Admits > 2. Admits, except that an incomplete copy of the Notice of Deficiency was attached to the answer as exhibit “A”. The attached NOD differs from the one mailed to Petitioner on Nov 6, 2006. Further, the NOD classified as exhibit A had included inside of it a Notice CP2000 dated August 14, 2006. This appears to be similar to the old Notice of Proposed Assessment, commonly known as the “30 day letter.”
Including the Notice CP2000 inside of the NOD is more than not correct; it is confusing, misleading and disingenuous to a pro se litigant with no legal experience. The District Counsel’s office likes to beat up on citizens who do not have the resources to hire expensive tax professionals.
Further the CP2000 included inside the NOD differs from the CP2000 mailed to tax victim on August 14, 2006.
3. Admits
4. Attachment to Amended Petition.
(1) Admits
(2) Same as number 2 above.
(3) Admits
(4)    (A)  -  (G) The Answer of District Counsel is incomplete, evasive and inconclusive. She did not state the government’s position, leaving pro se petitioner with no understanding or knowledge of the government’s position. Since the Commissioner has not stated his case, penniless petitioner must now engage in expensive discovery to ferret out the IRS defense.
Highly-paid tax lawyer for Respondent denied that taxpayer had any business expenses, tax preparation expense, illegal telephone excise tax, etc. Everybody has these. The “safe harbor” amount for the illegal telephone excise tax is $40, which the IRS routinely allows.
Petitioner disputed the W-2’s used by the IRS but District Counsel did not specifically deny. Failure to deny is an admission. Therefore, by default the IRS has admitted that the wage statements against Petitioner are invalid and not correct.
The answer did not specifically deny Petitioner’s request for waiver and abatement of penalties. Therefore, the IRS has agreed to this.
District Counsel has not done her job and has not given pro se petitioner any idea of which parts of the case are actively disputed. Therefore DC should be required to re-file her answer and clearly spell out the government’s defense.
Since District Counsel’s answer does not convey information and is worthless, the Commissioner should be penalized $25,000 under IRC §6673. Since DC filed an answer with no real information on it, her client should pay to the victim the additional expense, cost and fees that she incurs to deal with an incomplete and inconclusive responsive pleading.
(5) Admits.
5. Requests that a new answer be filed that gives information to the opposing party.
6. WHEREFORE, the relief sought above should be, in all respects, approved.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.



_________________________ Dated: July 20, 2007
Rhonda Patriot