Calhoun Cases

1. Dr. Calhoun's CDPH lawsuit in Federal Court
2. Dr. Calhoun's Opposition to IRS Motion to Dismiss
3. Dr. Calhoun's Brief in Support to Opposition to IRS Motion to Dismiss
4. Dr. Calhoun's Reply To Answer Entered By United States
5. Dr. Calhoun's Response to Reply Brief Entered by U.S.
6. Dr. Calhoun's Reply and Rebuttal to Motions
7. Dr. Calhoun's Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories
8. Dr. Calhoun's Complaint to Overturn Invalid IRS Collection Due Process Determination
9. Dr. Calhoun's Notice of Appeal to 4th Circuit Court
10. Dr. Calhoun's Motion for Extension of Time
11. Dr. Calhoun's Famous Appeals Brief on Schulz II
12. Dr. Calhoun's Reply to Memorandum Brief of Appellees
13. Dr. Calhoun's Motion for Rehearing

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND          }
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND          }
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND          }
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

This case is a judicial appeal from the two notices of determination issued by the Internal Revenue Ser-vice (hereinafter: IRS) office of appeals in Columbia, South Carolina on July 8, 2004. Under the “Collec-tion Due Process Hearing” (hereinafter: CDPH or CDP Hearing) statute in Internal Revenue Code (here-inafter: IRC) 6330, Plaintiff John M. Calhoun had thirty (30) days to appeal the adverse determination of the IRS in U.S. District Court. Calhoun is asking the Court to force the IRS to grant him a CDPH as re-quired by law. The United States filed a motion to dismiss this case on September 21, 2004, a reply in support of that motion on October 12, 2004, and an answer to Calhoun’s brief on December 6, 2004.

The U.S. Attorney is stonewalling and scratching to find some answers when she knows that the facts are clearly correct. She is engaging in subterfuge and defrauding the court by showing no respect for district court Judges in South Carolina. Unlike District Court Judges in places like New York, which is renown for its political corruption, we are blessed with a good judicial system in South Carolina and its Judges are well-respected nationwide. Having lived abroad for many years (and in many other states too), and having seen and read about much judicial corruption or irresponsibility in those places, I can aver that we are judicially much better off in South Carolina than other places. However, this maneuvering by the U.S. Attorney in Washington is inconsistent with the unadulterated legal practice common in South Carolina.

Calhoun reiterates his claims of his brief of October 20, 2004:

1) Since Calhoun’s “underlying tax liability” is in question, and has been raised as an issue with the IRS, as well as the complaint and motion to dismiss submitted to this Court, this Court has jurisdiction in the matter at hand. Calhoun has filed suit in this Court because it is the correct venue to do so.

2) The “90 day” Notice of Deficiency letter was not received by Calhoun, and Calhoun believes that such an error was intentional and vicious on the part of the IRS.

3) Calhoun’s procedural rights have been violated in the case since he was denied a face-to-face hearing. The IRS and U.S. Attorney are trying to use the tax law to punish Calhoun, who is an outspoken writer, radio talk show host, and lecturer who favors liberty and free market economics, and one who denounces the abuses of government agencies like the IRS.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

Respectfully submitted December 3, 2004

_______________________________

John C. Calhoun, Ph.D., pro se
P.O. Box 25
Greenville, SC 29616

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND          }
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

RESPONSE TO REPLY BRIEF ENTERED BY UNITED STATES

The main facts of this case have been repeated over and again in the various pleadings by Plaintiff and Defendant. Pursuant to local rule 7.07, this brief responds to various new or modified allegations or statements made by the U.S. Attorney in its Motion of February 22, 2005.

1. Congress enacted legislation in the Taxpayers Bill of Rights acts that require the IRS to send correspondence to a correct address. In violation of this rule, the IRS sent notices to a known bad address, as Calhoun explained at length in his Reply and Rebuttal to Motions of February 9, 2005. It is not simply a negative aspect of the IRS sending correspondence to Calhoun’s “last known address” that the law requires; the IRS also has a positive duty to not send correspondence and notices to a known bad address. Even if the IRS complied with the negative aspect of its duty, as the U.S. Attorney contends, they did not comply with the positive aspect. While the IRS and some Congressmen like famed cheat Dan Rostenkowski opposed this legislation, it did pass and the IRS (to its chagrin) must comply with it. Calhoun requests that the court admonish the U.S. Attorney for treating the law with such indifference.

2. The U.S. Attorney continues to argue that the U.S. Tax Court has jurisdiction over some parts of this case. Calhoun has never denied that the U.S. Tax Court could have been chosen to hear parts of this complaint, but that Calhoun has the option per IRC 6330 to bring the complaint in U.S. District Court if there are questions about underlying tax liability­ which there are. Judging from the U.S. Attorney’s Motion of February 22, 2005, the IRS has already scorned Calhoun’s position and simply hopes to escape the more impartial jurisdiction of U.S. District Court in dealing with such a sensitive issue. The U.S. Attorney has already conceded that this Court has jurisdiction over at least one penalty assessed by the IRS. Calhoun is asking this Court to make a determination regarding tax liability since the IRS did not do so at a face-to-face hearing and purposely sent Calhoun notices of deficiency to a known bad address in violation of law. Furthermore, Calhoun contends that the entire matter should come before this Court, not just the frivolous return penalty.

3. The U.S. Attorney argues that the IRS denied Calhoun a face-to-face hearing based on their belief that Calhoun held to “frivolous” arguments twelve or thirteen years ago. Even if such were the case, why would it have any bearing on whether Calhoun should have a face-to-face hearing in 2005? Since Calhoun did not meet with the IRS for a hearing in 1993 or 1994, how is it that the IRS has determined that Calhoun’s arguments are frivolous? The first time in which Calhoun presented a full argument for IRS viewing was in his “Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Underlying Legal Basis” to this Court on February 14, 2005. So how could the IRS have made such a judgment of frivolity over a dozen years prior? Such a Notice cannot serve as grounds for denial of a face-to-face hearing.

Calhoun admits that he raised arguments in 1992 and 1993 that the IRS considered to be “frivolous”. But so what? Calhoun has not raised any recent arguments that would permit the IRS to deny a face-to-face hearing in June 2004 or sometime in 2005. The Notice filed in this court in February 2005 provides no grounds for an IRS appeals officer to have made a decision a year earlier to deny Calhoun a face-to-face hearing. The Treasury Regulations are not the law, even if they are often treated with similar force. The IRC does not say that a face-to-face hearing may be disallowed by the caprice and whim of the IRS. It is precisely the proper function of this Court to handle disputes over what the law means and the intention of Congress rather than merely accept the fancies of the Treasury Department.

4. The U.S. Attorney and the IRS have attempted to belittle their lies by saying that their allegations about Calhoun being involved in the Pilot Connection Society are effectively irrelevant. But this is not so. The U.S. Attorney has tried to paint a picture of Calhoun as a “tax-protester” and therefore not entitled to a face-to-face hearing on account of his frivolous arguments. Therefore, the Pilot Connection is relevant to the case. Calhoun pointed out other lies of the U.S. Attorney in his Reply and Rebuttal to Motions of February 9, 2005, as well as the U.S. Attorney and IRS’s belligerent and bald-faced lawbreaking by calling Calhoun a “tax-protester”. Yet there has been no remorse or retraction of the lies and characterizations of Calhoun. Thus, Calhoun requests that this Court again reprimand the U.S. Attorney and the IRS for these wrongful actions.

5. In Paragraph 4 of its Motion of February 22, 2005, the U.S. Attorney seriously misled this Court (and nearly lied) by insinuating that they complied with the Scheduling Order of this Court to complete discovery by February 18, 2005. Calhoun submitted clear, concise discoverable information requests and relevant interrogatories, but the U.S. Attorney used missives to avoid providing Calhoun with the information needed to proceed with his case. They did not respond in any useful or meaningful way to Calhoun’s requests. Instead, they used blanket objections to his simple and easy to understand questions, and whining about them being too burdensome.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I delivered properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

Executed on February 28, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

John C. Calhoun, pro se

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      }
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND          }
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

The main facts of this case have been repeated over and again in the various pleadings by Plaintiff and Defendant. This brief answers and rebuts several motions by defendant. Unless ex-plicitly admitted, Calhoun denies all allegations of the U.S. Attorney in her motions and exhibits of January 18, 2005.

1. The Department of Justice has lied. Calhoun has never been a member of (or in any way involved with) “The Pilot Connection Society”, nor has he ever heard of such a group other than in IRS pleadings or letters. Government exhibit 16 does not show any connection between Calhoun and this society. Government exhibit 19 merely asserts this connection and that examination of Calhoun’s tax liability was therefore put into something known as the “Phoenix project”—whatever that was—but does not provide any proof of Calhoun’s alleged “connection”. Defendant is clearly fabricating spurious arguments in its case against Calhoun, and Calhoun requests that this Court force the IRS to disclose the nature of the “Phoenix project” and to stop these specious allegations against Calhoun.

On the contrary, Calhoun was endeavoring to comply with the law, and had undertaken regular correspondence with the IRS in order to make sure that his understanding of the law was correct. On the Forms 1040NR filed, as well as many other confirmatory writings, Calhoun asked the IRS to respond within 30 days if they did not agree with his conclusions. Calhoun usually sent 2nd and 3rd notices of the same correspondence. Yet the IRS did not respond (at least not with sub-stantive answers) within 30, 60, or even 90 days. When Calhoun left Oregon for graduate school in Virginia, he had every reason to believe that the IRS agreed with his position after having sent such confirmatory writings.

Government exhibit 19 shows that IRS Agent Pat Brown falsely and maliciously asserted that Calhoun “has refused to cooperate” and “has actively attempted to thwart attempts to determine his substantially correct tax liability”. However, Calhoun wrote to the IRS on many occasions and will produce evidence of this correspondence and lack of substantial replies from the IRS during the trial phase. The IRS is lying. How can such refusals and thwarting be accurately said of one who is regularly corresponding with the IRS?

Calhoun asserts that such false accusations are typical of IRS bullying and demands that the IRS produce evidence of any membership in (or action with) the Pilot Connection Society or any tax protester activities. If the IRS is in fact engaged in a long-term program to chill pure First Amendment activity, this further belies its stated purposes of fair, honest tax collection, period, to the point that a formal investigation would theoretically be called for.

The Department of Justice has also lied about the Patriot Network. This group has not had any cases thrown out for being “frivolous” during its thirty years of its operation. Calhoun is not a member of this network, although he has been invited on many occasions to lecture on the academic areas in which he has written (e.g., public policy, theologies about civil government, property rights, free-market economics, and market-based social institutions).

Calhoun was initially asked to speak about his latest book, Bible and Government: Public Pol-icy from a Christian Perspective, by the Patriot Network leadership. After completing what the leaders considered a very successful and fruitful lecture series, Calhoun was invited to speak on other subjects wherein he had some expertise. Moreover, Calhoun has also been invited to speak from his fields of knowledge to other highly varied organizations, many quite prestigious, both nationally and internationally.

In the last few years, for instance, he has been an invited speaker at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, La Fundación Atlas in Buenos Aires, and university seminars in Belgium, Aix-en-Provence, France, Prague, Czech Republic, Guatemala, and Belgrade. Locally, Calhoun has spoken before many groups including Americans for Constitutional Government, several homeschool association meetings, the Rotary Club, church groups, as well as at other meetings on an informal basis.

Absent evidence to prove Calhoun’s involvement in the Pilot Connection Society or a tax protest scheme or group, Calhoun hereby requests that this Court compel the IRS to remove all such assertion(s) and charge(s) from any and all of Calhoun’s record(s) and file(s) on file with any and all agencies and instrumentalities, including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service.

In government exhibit 6, Mary Green flagrantly lies and falsely claims that Calhoun “conducts seminars around the country advancing arguments against taxes that Federal Courts have determined to be frivolous” and states that Calhoun “is a college professor who conducts seminars that advance frivolous argument [sic] against taxation.” These allegations are false. Neither Mary Green nor the IRS have any evidence to support these allegations and Calhoun avers that he has not conducted any such seminars. Calhoun has not been a “college professor” since 2002, but he does have recognized expertise in conventional public policy and free market economics topics. His books are published and are widely available. None of these books include any of the topics that Mary Green fraudulently stated. The U.S. Attorney and Mary Green have chosen to make up lies rather than take time to review Calhoun’s books and articles, which would conclusively show that Calhoun has not written and advanced such “arguments against taxes”. Calhoun refuses to be a casualty of (or the brunt of) the U.S. Attorney’s laziness in researching their allegations by not reading Calhoun’s work.

In government exhibit 15, IRS Appeals Agents Cathy Lacienski and/or Jeanette Amaker state that it “clearly appears” that Calhoun is “tax challenged and won’t get a face or face [sic] anyway.” Calhoun considers this language to be offensive and requests that this court require the IRS to issue a written apology for publishing such a judgment. Furthermore, Calhoun finds in this language more evidence of IRS abuse as they have evinced their intention to railroad Calhoun from the start, without allowing him a face-to-face hearing provided for him by Congress.

Calhoun respectfully requests that the Court reprimand and admonish the U.S. Attorney for using allegations that are known to be spurious or baseless. Calhoun further asks the Court to note that if such allegations are wrong then the court should likewise doubt the IRS’s other allegations against Calhoun.

Calhoun is a law-abiding citizen and has always endeavored to uphold the law and resents the IRS’s claims and insinuations that he is in any way a lawbreaker. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98) § 3707 and internal IRS guidelines prohibit the designation of taxpayers as “Illegal Tax Protesters” or any similar designations. Calhoun requests that the court reprimand the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney for their callous disregard of the law. The prohibition has been in effect seven years, and as of September 6, 2002—just over two years ago—the IRS only then began to make mediocre progress in obeying it.

2. The IRS and the government oppose Calhoun because he has been active in groups such as the Association of Christian Freeman, a trust formed to promote the study of law with respect to Christian principles, as well as his academic pursuits, weekly newspaper column, books, and radio broadcast, all of which decry IRS abuses on occasion. The Defendant has been trying to punish Calhoun with the law for many years. And Calhoun thus seeks relief from the IRS’s tyranny by means of this Court.

3. What Calhoun knows about the law he learned through self-study and through attending lectures on Constitutional Law. Calhoun has an impressive set of academic credentials and is able to do his own research. Calhoun does not follow a packaged plan for dealing with the IRS and gaining his understanding of the law. This fact should be apparent by reading this brief and the ensuing Notice of Underlying Legal Basis. Furthermore, Calhoun does not assist (and has never assisted) others in filing documents with the IRS.

4. Calhoun further disputes the U.S. Attorney’s presentation of the “facts” of this case, particularly with regard to Calhoun’s underlying tax liability and correspondence with the IRS over the last fifteen (15) months. However, Calhoun contends that this complaint is directed primarily to forcing the IRS to grant him a face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing (which is his right under the law: I.R.C. 6330), and secondarily to ask this Court to make a determination about Calhoun’s underlying tax liability. The U.S. Attorney has raised issues and discussed “facts” in its Motion to Dismiss of January 18, 2005 that merely provide her opinions or interpretations about Calhoun’s position regarding his underlying legal basis, and detract from the primary issue at hand: forcing the IRS to grant a face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing with Calhoun—whether or not he brings witnesses and a tape recorder.

In government exhibit 6, Mary Green again lies and falsely claims that Calhoun made statements to her at the “correspondence hearing”. Calhoun made no statements at all during this “hearing” but instead requested a face-to-face hearing, which is his right, and which the IRS has repeatedly denied it to him. Calhoun did not submit any documents to Mary Green’s correspondence hearing because Calhoun was demanding his right to a face-to-face hearing instead. Thus, Mary Green’s sworn statement is perjured.

5. The current legal process has been about forcing the IRS to grant Calhoun a face-to-face Collection Due Process Hearing. Calhoun was denied this hearing, even though he properly requested collection alternatives within the thirty (30) day period specified by Congress.

The Defendant has argued that the Treasury Department can modify what Congress has said, and now the issue is before this court to decide what the law means. However, Congress has not placed preconditions for exercising one’s right to a Collections Due Process Hearing. The IRS has unilaterally held that Calhoun is out of compliance but Congress has not said so.

The IRS is always trying to put itself above the law, and this case provides an example of their abuse. Calhoun should not have to jump through the IRS’s hoops. Their barriers are unlawful and self-serving, going beyond what Congress has enacted.

Furthermore, what would the IRS have Calhoun to do? Does it really want the inefficiencies of Calhoun filing form 1040 “zero” tax returns for years in which he had no tax liability from 1993 to 2003, especially given the fact that Calhoun was either a full time graduate student (with no significant earnings) or lived in South America for eight (8) of those years! If anything, Calhoun would have been due the Earned Income Credit and other welfare state benefits given that he had between four and six children plus a dependent wife during that period. But everyone knows that the IRS is not happy with so-called “zero” returns so why would they want them from Calhoun? The hypothetical exercise noted above is simply an analytical heuristic used to make a point. Calhoun contends, of course, that he has had no tax liability to report on a Form 1040.

The U.S. Attorney is trying to deny Calhoun his right to a face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing by stating that Calhoun used, in its erroneous judgment, “frivolous” arguments about tax liability over ten years ago. Yet the IRS did not so respond to Calhoun’s queries at that time. And what would such issues, even if they were true in 1991 and 1992 (though they are certainly not true), have to do with Calhoun exercising his right to have a face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing twelve (12) years later? Calhoun asks this Court for relief from the IRS apparently thinking that there is no time limit on how far it can pursue civil matters against Calhoun.

6. Defendant cites Treasury Regulation in defense of its use of a correspondence hearing in-stead of a face-to-face hearing. However, the Treasury Regulations are not law. The Collection Due Process Hearing is not similar to the Collection Appeal Program that the IRS used to have ear-lier. The former is an act of Congress while the latter was a mere internal procedure.

Congress did not intend that the Treasury Department should be able to trample on the rights of citizens by modifying the law to suit its needs best. The IRS is correct in bringing up that there were Constitutional, statutory and judicial arguments made by Calhoun over a decade ago. Calhoun raised those issues with the IRS on many occasions and never received anything but temporizing and obfuscating letters from the IRS. Calhoun has not thus far used such issues as arguments in this case, but he is willing to raise these issues now (since the U.S. Attorney has opened the matter), and will be notifying the Court regarding his underlying legal basis for his actions ten (10) to fifteen (15) years ago.

7. Calhoun never received a Notice of Deficiency allegedly sent to him on March 31, 1994. According to government exhibit 19, this Notice of Deficiency was purposely sent to three bad ad-dresses. The U.S. Attorney states that they have proof of sending the Notice of Demand letter more recently but still have not provided proof of sending the required Notice of Deficiency twelve (12) years ago. Calhoun did not sign any postal tracer that indicated his receipt of such Notice of Deficiency. For all anyone knows, the IRS had their Notice of Deficiency returned to them and then they just filed it as if it were received (even though it was not) anyway—just to be spiteful. IRS Agent Pat Brown apparently has a sufficiently malicious character to do so.

The IRS willfully used a known bad address in order to make sure that Calhoun had no opportunity to contest the Notice of Deficiency’s false claims about his taxable income. Calhoun moved several times during 1993 and 1994, having addresses in several cities in Oregon, as well as addresses in West Virginia. Calhoun was a graduate student during that time and his various familial, educational, and financial obligations created a need for his relocation on several occasions.

The IRS admits that it mailed a Notice of Deficiency to Calhoun’s known old business (not home) address in Oregon on March 31, 1994 (government exhibit 11)— even though Calhoun had never lived at that address and had not used that address for well over a year! The IRS knew that Calhoun had moved since, as government exhibit 10 shows that around September 3, 1993 the IRS had a letter returned to them as undeliverable. Yet the IRS still sent the Notice of Deficiency letter seven months later to Calhoun’s previous office which would have been known to be a bad address to any reasonable person. Calhoun was a graduate student living in Virginia in March 1994. The IRS knew that Calhoun was in Virginia, too, since they tried to levy Calhoun’s meager graduate student stipend. Calhoun had never seen this Notice of Deficiency before January 2005, and then only in the government’s exhibit for this proceeding.

Modern Americans move frequently—especially those doing graduate studies. The IRS knew that they had not sent correspondence to Calhoun’s known address. The IRS’s exhibits in this case demonstrate that the IRS knew about many of Calhoun’s address changes. Yet they did not make a good faith effort to ensure that Calhoun received the IRS’s Notices.

I.R.C. 6330 outlaws bad or incorrect IRS collection procedures. The IRS sent a Notice of Deficiency to a known bad address and thus did not fulfill its procedural obligations. Congress passed I.R.C. 6330 to stop such IRS abuses. Moreover, by saying that they have proof of sending a Notice of Demand letter, but have conspicuously left out the proof for the Notice of Deficiency letter, the Defendant has made an implicit admission by omission. The missing proof of the latter was left out and provides an indirect admission from silence.

8. Defendant has refused to hear or produce evidence that Calhoun has a tax liability and when confronted has made every effort to evade the process of law. For instance, Mary Green, IRS Appeals Officer in Columbia, SC, cannot possibly know the facts or testify to what happened in Oregon 12 to 14 years earlier. If this is how she operates, she must (as if to confirm the jaundiced public perception of things) be little more than a faceless bureaucrat processing paperwork in a rote manner without knowing any facts.

Likewise, the U.S. Attorney has endeavored to avoid discovery by refusing to completely answer Calhoun’s interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. In their responses of January 31, 2005, they have used colorful language such as “vague”, “overly burdensome”, “unclear”, and “argumentative” to describe Calhoun’s clearly straightforward requests. The U.S. Attorney should be reprimanded for this attempt to derail the process of law. The IRS has something to hide in this case and the U.S. Attorney knows it.

9. Mary Green states that Calhoun “failed to dispute” these assessments. But how could Calhoun do so? He was never advised that the (errant) assessments were made since the IRS will-fully mailed the Notice of Deficiency to a known bad address? In government exhibit 6, Mary Green admits that the IRS knew that the “Notice of Deficiencies were returned to the IRS because Taxpayer had moved from his business”, but the IRS made no effort to verify that Calhoun’s address was correct prior to sending said Notice, and in fact knew that he had moved since he had been corresponding with them from a different address in Oregon for over a year!

10. Calhoun corresponded with the IRS frequently during 1991 through 1994. Calhoun asked careful, responsible legal questions and received lame or put-off answers in reply. Calhoun disclosed precisely what he was doing (with filing Forms 1040NR, etc.) and told the IRS his good-faith belief about (and understanding of) the law (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)). He asked the IRS to show him where he was wrong, which they failed to do. Last July, Calhoun once again corresponded with the IRS in Washington, DC in order to clarify matters of law but received no reply. The IRS still refuses to respond to correspondence from Calhoun regarding legal questions. In U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977), the court ruled that “Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct...If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately”. Calhoun realizes that he must consult both statute and regulations to find out what duty, if any, he owes with regard to the income tax (United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960)). Calhoun has done so. The IRS refuses to treat Calhoun as a citizen with rights and legitimate questions.

11. The U.S. Attorney’s interpretation of the law in I.R.C. 6303 (in her Motion to Dismiss of January 18, 2004) invites further IRS abuse. The pertinent part of that section states: “Such notice shall be left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or shall be sent by mail to such person's last known address.” Congress did not intend that this code section provide the IRS a means of sending important correspondence to a known bad address and then, when impaling its victim, to claim immunity or innocence under the provision. Since the IRS has been negligent in its dealings with Calhoun, and is intentionally malicious in its intent to punish Calhoun with the tax law, Calhoun requests that this Court not stand for the IRS’s chicanery or attempts to candy-coat its bad behavior, despite attempts by the U.S. Attorney to finagle this Court with eloquent rationalizations.

12. The IRS has evidently extended the liens filed against Calhoun by two years and nine months based on a determination under I.R.C. 6503(c). The pertinent part of that code section says: “Taxpayer outside United States[:] The running of the period of limitations on collection after assessment prescribed in section 6502 shall be suspended for the period during which the taxpayer is outside the United States if such period of absence is for a continuous period of at least 6 months.” Calhoun admits that he was in Chile during the period indicated in government exhibit 27 (January 1998 to April 2000). However, Calhoun occasionally returned during that time to the United States—California and Virginia in particular—mostly to what amounted to his permanent address here. Thus, Calhoun was not entirely living out of the country for purposes of the code section in question. He was teaching in Chile mainly, along with stints in Guatemala, Argentina, and Europe. Calhoun requests that the Court review the basis for the IRS’s extension of its liens against Calhoun (and the period of the statute of limitations to collect). These liens are illegal and based on incorrect information and thus should be removed entirely. In the mean time, however, Calhoun asks that this Court eliminate or significantly reduce the allowable time for the extension based on I.R.C. 6503(c).

13. The U.S. Attorney wants to remove this case from this Court because it claims that Calhoun has no right to challenge the alleged tax liability. They are mistaken and are trying to use a sly means of not dealing with the issue. They are now trying to bring up “Constitutional” or political arguments in order to divert the focus away from the face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing matter

Thus, while Calhoun realizes that this case is primarily about getting a face-to-face Collections Due Process Hearing, he will soon file a substantial Notice of Underlying Legal Basis with the Court in order to counter the claims and “evidence” submitted by the U.S. Attorney in her January 18, 2005 Motion to Dismiss. Calhoun’s Notice of Underlying Legal Basis will demonstrate that Calhoun’s legal basis and argument is hardly unreasonable, “groundless”, “wrong”, or “frivolous”. Calhoun disagrees with the U.S. Attorney that his “ten-page letter to the IRS dated May 11, 1993” fully outlined his position or legal basis, although he admits that it comprised part of such basis. Calhoun agrees with the implied reasoning of the U.S. Attorney that Calhoun’s tax liability should be discussed in this Court and he again asserts that this Court is the proper venue for all such concerns per I.R.C. 6330(d).

Calhoun denies and rejects the blundering assertion and income figures of the U.S. Attorney: “Plainly, Calhoun is not a nonresident alien, and he was required to report his annual income (in excess of $100,000) on a U.S. Income Tax Return (Form 1040).” Calhoun denies the unsubstantiated and false claim of IRS Appeals Officers Mary Green and Pat Brown et al that he “had taxable income of $89,680” in 1991 and in 1992 “had taxable income of $176,601”. These figures are pure falsehood and ridiculous. The government’s exhibits show deposit receipts from different banks without taking into account the source of the deposits, including new loans deposited into the account, gifts, and transfers from one account to another. The IRS has no proof of such claims—only the wishful thinking and/or malicious intent of Mary Green over a decade later.

14. Finally, Calhoun requests that this Court force the U.S. Attorney to comply, or at least attempt to comply with, Calhoun’s interrogatories. The U.S. Attorney has been unwilling to make a fair attempt at providing Calhoun with discovery and information relevant to this case. While Calhoun empathizes with the added workload that cases like this one pose for the U.S. Attorney, at least she is paid to do it. Calhoun, on the other hand, brings this case without pay and has a far greater reason to claim that the erroneous and malicious arguments of the IRS have been “overly burdensome”, “vague”, “unclear”, and “argumentative”. Calhoun asks that the court direct the U.S. Attorney to stop her whining about her workload and produce answers and documents to the interrogatories and requested discovery. Calhoun likewise opposes the U.S. Attorney’s Motion to Stay discovery entered January 18, 2005 and asks that this Court compel the U.S. Attorney to comply with the scheduling order entered by this Court.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I delivered properly a copy of this plead-ing to opposing counsel.

Executed on February 9, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________
John C. Calhoun, Ph.D., pro se

JOHN C.CALHOUN,                       }
                                      }
Plaintiff,                            }
                                      }
vs.                                   } Case No. 6:04CV2455
                                      } UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND         
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER         }
                                      }
OF INTERNAL REVENUE                   }Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories
                                      }
Defendant(s).                         }
______________________________________}

To: Defendant (or his attorney)
Requester, pursuant to Rule 34 FRCivP, requests that you allow the inspection and copying of the following documents and other items at your office at 10:00 A.M. on the thirtieth (30th) day after service of this upon you:
1. Each and every document, record and material that you have or can obtain about requester and his party.

2. Each and every document, record and material that you have or can obtain about this action or pertaining to it.

3. Each and every document, record and material about or pertaining to this requester and this action held of obtainable by your attorney and the firm or agency for which he works.

4. The documents of yours and your attorney are pertaining to the witnesses in this case or potential witnesses.
This request is continuing in nature and applies to documents as described above that hereafter are obtained by you.

Persons Likely to Have Discoverable Information

Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A), the following listed persons are likely to have discoverable information for obtaining the items listed above, as well as information to answer the interrogatories in the ensuing section. Direct phone numbers were not available to Calhoun for these persons but, presumably, the defendant will have these phone numbers.

Mary Green, Settlement Officer
Catherine L. Lacienski, Appeals Team Manager
Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office
1835 Assembly St., Suite 508, MDP 43
Columbia, SC 29201
Re: Woman who did the CDPH "correspondence hearing" in mid 2004 in Columbia, SC.

Glenda G. Cox, Manager
Data Control Team
Internal Revenue Service
Memphis, TN
Re: Signed certificates of official record showing substitute return filed for Calhoun in 1991 and 1992 showed liens extended
for 2 3/4 years. She should know the reasons/justifications for these actions.

Thomas R. Booher
Internal Revenue Service
960 Ellendale, Suite A
Medford, OR 97504
Re: Resurrected the Calhoun case in late 2003 and transferred it to Mary Green in Columbia. He should have information about Calhoun’s alleged tax liability, and proof of such claims.

Ann Cameron, Revenue Agent
Internal Revenue Service
310 W. 6th St., Room 304
Medford, OR 97501
Re: Did not send notice of deficiency and refused to provide "point-by-point" answers to Calhoun’s inquiries during 1992-1993.

William Mesure, IRS Affiliate/Agent
Earline Connell, IRS Affiliate/Agent
Noemi Ortiz, IRS Affiliate/Agent
Internal Revenue Service, Service Center
Philadelphia, PA 19255
Re: Gave Calhoun the runaround over documents submitted 1992; left unanswered correspondence.

Interrogatories

1. Identify all documents, records, tapes, material, objects, etc. related in any way to this case and the parties hereto.

2. Identify all persons; witnesses, potential witnesses, parties, etc. involved any way with this case, the parties or documents.

3. Identify all persons who assisted in responding to this discovery motion.

4. Do you have record of (and a copy of) a Notice of Deficiency that was allegedly mailed to Calhoun?

5. Do you have record of (and a copy of) a 90-day Demand Letter that was allegedly mailed to Calhoun?

6. Is it not true that the Internal Revenue Service made no effort to find a correct address for Calhoun?

7. Is it not true that the Internal Revenue Service sent notices in 1993-1994 to a known bad address?

8. Is it not true that the Internal Revenue Service has no evidence (in the form of a signed tax return) to back up its allegations that Calhoun has a tax liability for years 1991 and 1992? If it continues to claim to have such documentation, why has the Internal Revenue Service been unwilling to provide a copy of it to Calhoun?

9. After nearly a decade of allowing this dispute to lie dormant, why has the Internal Revenue Service now decided to come out and attack Calhoun?

10. Is it not true that the Internal Revenue Service’s reasons for attacking Calhoun are at least in part fueled by the Internal Revenue Service’s desire to assail Calhoun for his outspoken views in favor of liberty and free markets, and against Internal Revenue Service abuses.

11. What law, statute, regulation, or internal memorandum or letter gave the Internal Revenue Service authority to extend the tax liens against Calhoun, which have now expired by statute of limitations? Please produce a copy and send it to Plaintiff.

12. What law, statute, regulation, or internal memorandum or letter gave the Internal Revenue Service authority to conduct a “correspondence hearing” instead of a face-to-face hearing? Please produce a copy and send it to Plaintiff.

13. Is it not true that the Internal Revenue Service ignored and denied Calhoun’s request for a face-to-face hearing near his home? By what authority and by whose direction did it do so?

These Interrogatories are continuing in nature and apply to information that here after is obtained by you.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I delivered properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

Executed on January 8, 2005.

______________________
John C. Calhoun, Ph.D., pro se
P.O. Box 25
Greenville, SC 29616