United States Tax Court
WASHINGTON D.C.
Bill G. Freeman, )
Petitioner, )
)
V. )DOCKET # 419x-xxx
)
Commissioner Internal Revenue,)Supplement to Petition for Re-Determination of
Respondent. ) Notice of Determination and Review
) of Decision Letters denying CDPHs
Petitioner above named hereby files his Supplement to Petition, dated February 14, 2008, for Re-Determination of Notice of Determination on CDPH and Review of Decision Letters, both effectively denying a Collection Due Process Hearing. Should the Clerk’s office classify this Supplement as an Amended Petition, then said Petition is hereby incorporated by reference. The Petition is based on the details provided in this Supplement, as follows:
1. Petitioner received Letter 1058, dated April 28, 2007, notifying him of an Intent to Levy for tax year 2003, and 2002 Civil Penalties. Petitioner responded with Form 12153 dated and posted on May 24, 2008, clearly requesting a face to face hearing, and within the 30 day requirement.
2. Petitioner received Letter 3172 from the IRS Service Center in Cincinnati, via Certified Mail and dated May 8, 2007, notifying him of a Lien filing for tax years 2002 and 2003, and 2002 Civil Penalties. Petitioner responded with Form 12153 dated and posted back to Cincinnati on June 12, 2007 clearly specifying those years, and requesting a face to face hearing, all within the 30 day requirement. Further, the letter 3172 stated the deadline date to reply was June 14, 2007, for which the requirement was satisfied.
3. Petitioner’s Requests for a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) for tax years 2002 and 2003, and Civil Penalties, filed on request Forms 12153 for both lien and levy were fully compliant with the lawful 30 day requirements, and contained the legally required information. Furthermore, Petitioner made multiple, and clearly expressed requests for a face-to-face hearing in all cases.
4. Petitioner requested a CDPH to discuss collection alternatives, procedure and due process irregularities, etc. Petitioner’s request forms did not list one item on the tax collector’s “frivolous” list, nor was any frivolous argument alleged. The 12153 Forms were complete insofar that all required information was provided.
5. Petitioner subsequently received two Letters 4141 from Sharon Patterson, Appeals Team Manager of the Memphis Appeals Campus, both dated July 23, 2007. One was for the 2002 Levy, and the other was for the 2003 Levy. No action was requested from Petitioner, and no comment was made regarding the veracity of the 12153 requests.
6. Petitioner received two more Letters 4141, this time from Kathleen Bell, Settlement Officer, of the Memphis Appeals Campus, both dated August 16, 2007. One was for the 2002 Lien, and the other was for the 2002/2003 Lien. Again, no action was requested from Petitioner, and no comment was made regarding the veracity of the 12153 requests.
7. Petitioner then received a letter, “Appeals Received Your Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing,” dated September 24, 2007, from Mrs. M Banks, Settlement Officer of the Memphis Appeals Campus. The subject was In Re; Collection Due Process – Levy/Lien, for Tax Periods Ended 12/2002, and 12/2003. This letter scheduled a telephone conference call for October 23, 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.” It went on to state “On your Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing you indicated a face-to face hearing. However, you are not entitled to a face-to face because you are not in filing compliance for tax period December 31, 2004.”
While Ms. Banks went on to acknowledge Petitioner’s request for a CDPH in re: Levy 2002/2003, she denied that the same request for a CDPH in re: Lien for CivPen 2002, and Tax Returns for 2002/2003 was timely. Her reasoning was that “it was not received or postmarked by the date indicated on the Letter 3172, (see para 2 above.)
8. In reply to Ms. Banks allegations in her September 24, 2007 letter, Petitioner responded in writing on October 12, 2007. He pointed out that at no time until Ms. Banks’ notification had the IRS ever alleged a problem with Petitioner’s 2004 return, other than being unable to respond to Petitioner’s queries as to its location or status. Petitioner provided a copy of his 2004 return, here for at least the fourth time to an office of the IRS, to Ms. Banks via certified mail. The U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery on October 18,2007, and the Domestic Return Receipt (aka ‘green card’) was stamped “RECEIVED MAMC-U.S. TREASURY 2007 OCT 19 A 7:24.” In this letter, posted 10 days BEFORE Ms. Banks’ scheduled phone call, Petitioner provided details of the mailing of his 12153 request (see para. 2 above), to include a copy of the ‘green card’ confirming the post mark/receipt date as timely, and again restated his desire for a face to face hearing, where Petitioner, with legal representative, would have raised pertinent issues, to include collection alternatives, at the appropriate time. Congress has not required any taxpayer to present alternatives and forms in advance of the hearing. He also requested Ms. Banks verify the amount of the alleged debt, and provide a copy of the file under review, so he could understand where the controversy lies. Ms. Banks never replied to these latter requests.
9. Ms. Banks responded to the above reply with a letter dated October 23, 2007, stating, in regard to the scheduled phone conference, “You did not call me....and you had not called to indicate that this date and/or time were not convenient.” She provided no further information with regard to the timeliness issue, and she declared a November 6, 2007 deadline for Petitioner to “provide information for our consideration.” Then she said “We will promptly issue you a determination and/or decision letter with our findings.”
Petitioner responded on November 1, 2007 with a fax to Ms. Banks reiterating his letter of October 12, 2007. That fax identified the Certified Mail number, and the date of receipt by her office of the package described above in paragraph 7. Petitioner reminded Ms. Banks of his desire for a face to face hearing, that his 2004 tax return had inarguably been timely filed 31 months earlier, and that a telephone conference was not acceptable. Petitioner plainly stated, “I hear (SIC) again restate my demand for a face to face hearing where I may view the evidence, present my own, ask questions, record, and have a court reporter.” He also restated his request for a verification of the debt, and a copy of the record so he may prepare a rebuttal.
10. After this Fax, Ms. Banks phoned Petitioner saying “we’ve searched the entire facility and your letter and return can’t be found. I’ll need another copy of your 2004 return to ‘grant’ you a face to face hearing.” Petitioner again faxed Ms. Banks with a copy of his return, and a cover letter requesting “a validaton of the correct amount of the debt, and a copy of the records the Appeals Office is reviewing to make its determination.” The implication was clear that Ms. Banks deceived Petitioner in suggesting that a face to face hearing was predicated on providing unrelated returns, and that a face to face hearing was going to happen. Petitioner never heard from Ms. Banks again.
11. Petitioner received two “Decision Letters Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code” and a “Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330” all from Sharon Patterson, Appeals Team Manager of the Memphis Appeals Campus, all dated January 15, 2008. The Attachments to both Decision Letters said Petitioner’s “request for a CDP Hearing was not timely” (See #6 above) and refused to grant Petitioner a lawful face-to-face hearing allowed under IRC 6320/6330. In fact, Ms. Patterson said that Petitioner was “offered a conference by telephone, face-to-face or correspndence. This letter gave fourteen(14) days to respond if a face-to-face or correspondence conference was prefered” This is patently false, as has been described above. (Petitioner believes the IRS is creating false statements in such a manner as to make them look valid to an unaware court.) Petitioner would have had no need to pursue the extraordinary measures above, had a face-to-face been offered. Furthermore, Ms. Patterson is not an Appeals Officer and is not authorized to conduct a CDPH under IRC 6320/6330. Also, both letters state, under “Issues Raised by the Taxpayer” that “the taxpayer did not provide any supporting document to support his position.” This suggests that Petitioner had an opportunity to provide documents, which he did not. Since Ms. Banks never responded to Petitioner’s request for a copy of the administrative record, she successfully maintained the posture of a ‘Star Chamber,’ preventing Petitioner from having, or being able to address all the facts. The last word from Ms. Banks was “I’ll need another copy of your 2004 return to ‘grant’ you a face to face hearing,” unequivocally implying that such a hearing would be forthcoming after receipt of Petitioner’s fax.
12. Under Collection Alternative Offered by the Taxpayer: Ms. Patterson says “The taxpayer did not offer a collection alternative on form 12153.” Congress lists four conditions under which Petitioner had the right to request a hearing, only one of which was Collection Alterhnatives. Petitioner only chose to mention “Procedural Errors” but was fully prepared to discuss a payment in full; hence the reason for his repeated requests for Ms. Banks to verify the amount of the debt. Petitioner had already verified with his bank the availability of loan funds to make said payment, were he convinced of an error on his part. Petitioner was prepared to have this discussion face-to-face, but never had the chance.
13. Under Other Issues Raised by the Taxpayer: The matter of the “late” CDPH request is addressed by Ms. Patterson. She incorrectly states that the request “had to be received in the Kansas City office by June 14, 2007” in order to have been timely. Nowhere does Congress elucidate a place where a 12153 must be received in order to be timely, only that it be postmarked within 30 days of the initial notice. Since said notice was mailed from the Cincinnati office of the IRS, and that is the return address on the letterhead, common sense dictates that as the office to receive the response. Ms. Patterson did not contest that the request was correctly postmarked before the required date.
Under Other Issues Ms Patterson gives no credence to the possibility that Petitioner had real, viable concerns. As the person in charge of this office, she is fully aware that any matters of Civil Penalties automatically give Petitioner a right to adjudication, and yet she, with blithe indifference ices over the matter with her magic printouts indicating all is well, when in fact no such adjudication ever took place. Knowing this, how could she possibly state that all required procedures had been fulfilled?
14. The Notice of Determination Letter contains the same errors and mischaracterizations as the above described Decision Letters. In her Brief Background Ms Patterson alleges Petitioner did not respond to the September 24, 2007 letter of the Settlement Officer. This is false, as previously described. She goes on to imply that documents requested by the Settlement Officer “had not been received,” when in fact her offices had lost them. She states Petitioner “did not qualify” for a face to face hearing, but her qualification standards are of her own making, not that of Congress. She concludes the section by admitting “the correspondence appeared to have been misrouted,” but she doesn’t acknowledge that Petitioner had cooperated with every request, that her offices were at fault, and that no lawful conditions existed to deny a face-to-face hearing.
15. In the Discussions and Analysis section she persists in her deceptive mischaracterizations by again saying “On October 23, 2007 the taxpayer did not call for the scheduled conference,” but she knows full well that Petitioner notified her offices a full ten days before this scheduled event, insisting on a face-to-face hearing. The ‘second chance’ letter she references was unnecessary had they properly acted on Petitioner’s continual, repeated request for a face-to-face hearing.
16. In the Issues Raised by the Taxpayer section there are several comments that the “taxpayer did not challenge, did not offer, etc.” For the record, THERE WAS NO HEARING. The Petitioner was DENIED ANY OPPORTUNITY to offer or present any information, or to elicit any facts from the Appeals Office. In fact, agents of the Appeals Office appeared to have worked in concert to find any reason to deny the requested hearing. Petitioner was led to believe a face to face hearing would be forthcoming, when in fact the Memphis Appeals Campus undertook many overt acts that appear designed to thwart just such an event.
17. As a final parting shot, Ms. Patterson closes her Notice of Determination saying “The taxpayer was denied a face-to-face hearing because our records show the taxpayer has not filed valid tax returns for the several years.” This is a gratuitous statement. There are no facts to support this; no such allegations have ever been made. Neither Ms. Patterson, Ms. Banks, Ms. Bell, nor any office of the IRS has ever contacted Petitioner stating his returns were invalid. Had this been brought up in a face-to-face hearing, the exact problem that ‘invalidates’ these returns might have been discussed. However, the IRS policy is one of non-communication; making demands without explanation or reply. The Appeals Office seems to be well breifed in this policy.
18. On February 14, 2007, Petitioner was forced to appeal the IRS Decision Letters and its Determination Letter by filing a petition to dispute the IRS Collection Due Process Determination, and to dispute the denial of a CDPH for being untimely with the United States Tax Court, Washington, D.C., Docket #4195-08L, as is the proper and lawful procedure. Said petition stated Petitioner’s compliance with requirements for CDPH as set forth by the Congress of the United States and the violation of Petitioner’s statutory and administrative rights by the IRS’s denial of a face-to-face hearing. Said Petition requests a review of the denial of a CDPH for an untimely request. Said Petition requests an independent review of the administrative action; that Decision Letters and Notice of Determination be overturned and new, proper CDPHs be scheduled.
19. Petitioner met the requirement of 6320/6330 in his requests for the hearings. Petitioner clearly stated that he had issues with procedural defects. Congress sets forth the condition for a CDPH, not the IRS, and Petitioner made his request based on one of these conditions.
20. The requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures have not been satisfied by Respondent, and they have not been permitted to be addressed.
21. Petitioner did respond to all letters from Appeals, except those mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, which required no action.
22. Petitioner requested several documents that the IRS refused to provide.
23. Petitioner has relevant matters to discuss at the face-to-face hearing including relevant and nonfrivolous matters mentioned in his 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 his Petition.
24. In conclusion, this Supplement explains Petitioner’s position, and he requests that the CDPH Notice of Determination and Decision Letters, both dated January 15, 2007, be overturned and withdrawn, and the Court remand this case to Appeals Office and order the IRS to schedule a proper face-to-face hearing in a place mutually convenient to both parties.
___________________________________ May 19, 2008 Bill G. Freeman, pro se Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454
Docket No. 419x-xxx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify tht a copy of the foregoing Supplement to Petition for ReDetermination of Notice of Determination and Review of Decision Letters was served on Respondent by mailing the same on ___________________ in a postage paid wrapper addressed as follows:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Maint Street Centre
Attn: Aaron D. Gregory
600 East Maint Street, Suite 1601
Richmond, VA 23219-2430
______________________ Date:__________________ Bill G Freeman, pro se Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454