IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISRTICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

 
  
  Val Patriot,           									                                                                  ) 
Plaintiff,                                        ) 
                                                  )
         v.                                       ) Case No: 8:05-cv2019-T-27MAP
                                                  )       
                                                  }
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,	                    }
         and                                      )	REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION 
  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,                       )	FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
                                                  ) 
Defendants,					                              

   Plaintiff Val Patriot hereby filed his reply to the defendants response dated: November 17, 2005, based on following grounds:

1. The IRS on May 29, 2000 made an assessment for the tax year 1999. The IRS did not issued the Notice of Deficiency even though it is absolutely mandated by IRC.

2.Patriot challenged the collection activity with a CDPH request on June 7, 2001. CDPH was held on November 5, 2001 in Chicago. After the CDPH was over with, IRS issued first Notice of Deficiency on November 21, 2001. CDPH  Notice of  Determination was issued on March 27, 2002.

   Patriot appealed said determination to Tax Court on April 26, 2002. During Tax Court proceedings, IRS issued second Notice of Deficiency on May 29, 2003.Patriot could not challenge this deficiency in Tax Court because he was already in Tax Court for same 1999 year.

3.Patriot appeared in Tax Court as pro se and won.

4. The IRS after Tax Court case ruling on February 13, 2004, should have issued a new 90-day letter, but did not.

5.Patriot now has active his second CDPH. Congress very clearly in IRC statutes 6330 and 6320 require IRS to suspend collection activity during this process.

6. Levy onPatriot paycheck is illegal for two reasons:

       a) IRS did not send Notice of Deficiency correctly or at all. Further, they properly did not send Notice & Demand letter, which is mandatory.

       b) CDPH is pending.

7. Anti-Injunction Act has been waived by 6330(e)(1), {see page 5 of defendants’ response}.  Counsel for IRS in the Tax Court case, in his motion for mootness {plaintiff exhibit C-5 par. 15} said plaintiff is entitled to new pre-levy hearing.

8.Patriot is entitled to the judicial exception [see page 6 defendant response].Patriot has prevailed on this issue in the Tax Court. Wage levy againstPatriot with 2 children and ailing wife causes irreparable injury to their life.

Olender cannot petition Tax Court without 90-day letter. Defendant’s suggestion about the May 29, 2003 Notice of Levy is disingenuous.Patriot cannot petition the Tax Court because he was in Tax Court when this Notice of Deficiency was issued.

9.Patriot did not serve a summons because he served the show cause order by judge, which takes the place of the summons.Patriot took his summons forms to clerks office but clerk of the court said he do not need a summons, which he already knew.

                                                  CONCLUSION

10. The IRS made major mistakes in this case and has refused to make corrections even after loosing in Tax Court.Patriot after moving to Florida from Chicago, had new agents assigned to his case. They of course did know about the Tax Court ruling and would not listen to Plaintiff pleas. They ignoredPatriot letters, calls, etc.

Patriot want the 90 day letter and a chance settle this matter.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do here certify that on this day, I delivered properly a copy of these pleadings to opposing counsel at 400 N. Tampa St.,Su. 3200 Tampa, Fl 33602.

______________________                  Date: _______________

Val Patriot pro per
2496 Main Street
Northville, FL 34286