Beverly Patriot ) DOCKET
#_____________
Petitioner )
) Supplement
to Petition for Lien or
v. ) Levy
Action (Collection Action)
)
Commissioner Internal
Revenue ) Supplement to Petition
for
Respondent ) Re-Determination
of
) Notice of Determination on CDPH
Petitioner above named hereby files
her Supplement to Petition for Lien or Levy
Action (Collection Action) and Supplement to Petition
for Re-Determination of Notice of Determination on CDPH, dated June 1, 2007.
Should the Clerk’s office classify this Supplement
as an Amended Petition, then said Petition is hereby incorporated by reference.
This Supplement is based on the
following grounds:
1. On
November 13, 2006, Petitioner filed
on time her original Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing for tax year
1993 on request Form 12153. Petitioner notified the Service of her intentions
to make an audio recording of the hearing.
2. Petitioner
received a letter of acknowledgement from S. J. Miller-Boyd of the Memphis
Appeals Campus, dated February 12, 2007,
stating receipt of Petitioner’s Request, an assurance that said agent, the
“Person to Contact” would be the one helping Petitioner with her case, and
stating that Publication 4165 “Introduction to Collection Due Process Hearings”
was enclosed.
Publication 4165 was not enclosed with
the letter, and Petitioner never heard from S J Miller-Boyd again.
3. On
February 28, 2007, Petitioner
responded timely to the letter from agent Miller-Boyd and stated that she had
been unemployed since 1988. Also, she stated that she did not participate in
telephone interviews or reviews and stated she had repeatedly told the IRS that
she did not owe taxes for tax year 1993.
4. Petitioner
received a letter from Nicole D. Matthews of the Memphis Appeals Campus, dated February 26, 2007, scheduling a
telephone conference call for March 28, 2007. It said, “This call will be your primary opportunity to discuss with me the
reasons you disagree with the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives
to the collection action.” The letter also contained an offer for a
face-to-face conference at the Appeals office most convenient to Petitioner.
5. On
March 5, 2007, Petitioner responded
timely to the letter from agent Matthews, stating that she did not wish to have
a hearing by correspondence or telephone because the IRS has a bad reputation,
and she reminded agent Matthews of her request for a face-to-face hearing, as
prescribed by law (IRC Section 6330 (b)), with her tape recorder present. She
requested affirmation that her conference would be with an appeals officer, not
a settlement officer.
6. On
March 11, 2007, Petitioner responded
timely again with the same letter as March 5, 2007, adding “procedural irregularities”
to items to be discussed.
7. Petitioner
received a letter from L. M. Allen of the Atlanta Appeals Office, dated April 2, 2007, scheduling another
telephone conference call for May 1, 2007. The letter surprised Petitioner by
stating: “This letter is our
acknowledgement that we received your request for a Collection Due Process
(CDP) Hearing in our
The letter specifically stated: “I will call
you at the date and time indicated above.”
The letter also accused Petitioner, “The issues you raise in your CDP Request are
those that Courts have determined are frivolous or Appeals does not
consider.”
Further the same letter said, “You will be allowed a face-to-face
conference on any nonfrivolous issue: however, you will need to provide
the nonfrivolous issue in writing or by calling me within 14 days from the
date of this letter before a face-to-face conference will be scheduled.”
8. On
April 6, 2007, Petitioner again
responded timely to the letter from agent Allen, well within 14 days, stating
that she did not wish to have a hearing by correspondence or telephone because
of the bad reputation of the IRS, and she reminded agent Allen of her request
for a face-to-face hearing with her tape recorder present. She requested
affirmation that her conference would be with an appeals officer, not a
settlement officer.
Petitioner also asked why her issues were
judged to be “frivolous” for Appeals and why her questions regarding the 14
year-old tax period (1993) have gone unanswered, and offered to withdraw any
arguments, if any, that the IRS deemed frivolous or groundless.
9. Instead
of receiving any further correspondence or any telephone call from agent Allen,
Petitioner was ambushed by receiving a Notice of Determination, dated May 9, 2007, from the same Atlanta
Appeals Office, stating: “The taxpayer did not respond to attempts to conduct
a hearing,” and Petitioner still wonders why this false point is made,
using different wording, three times
in said Notice of Determination and Attachment (See #7).
Petitioner also wonders why the
Attachment to the NOD said, “The case was
transferred to the field Appeals Office in error.”
10. The
Attachment to the Notice of Determination falsely stated: “…the taxpayer did not respond
to two attempts to hold a hearing…” This is false as Petitioner wrote
letters to Appeals about this. However, her correspondence was lost by the IRS
during the transfer to the Atlanta Office.
11. Petitioner
met the requirement of 6330 in petitioning for the hearing. Petitioner clearly
stated in her CDPH her issues. Congress sets forth the condition for CDPH, not
the IRS (See Petition).
12. Petitioner
did respond to all letters from Appeals, including letters dated February 28, 2007 (Exhibit A), March 5, 2007 (Exhibit B),
March 11, 2007 (Exhibit C) and April 6, 2007 (Exhibit D).
13. Petitioner requested several
documents that the IRS refused to provide.
14. On
June 1, 2007, Petitioner was forced
to file a Petition (Docket #12996-07L) with the U.S. Tax Court for
Re-Determination.
Petitioner has relevant matters to
discuss at the face-to-face conference including the relevant and nonfrivolous
matters mentioned in her many timely responses to various agents’ demands.
Collection alternatives can be discussed and the necessary forms can be
submitted at the hearing. Congress has not placed any prerequisites for having
a face-to-face hearing such as Appeals has claimed. This is explained further
in her Petition.
15. The
requirements of various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining
to the IRS have not been met.
16. In conclusion, this Supplement explains
Petitioner’s position, and she requests that the Court remand this case to
Appeals Office and order the IRS to schedule a face-to-face hearing.
Beverly Patriot, pro se
Dahlonega, Georgia