US TAX
COURT
G.A.
Patriot, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Docket No. 25833-000x
V. )
)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, )
)
Respondent. )
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY TO ANSWER
Petitioner, G.A. Patriot, hereby files a Motion for
Summary Judgment and a Motion for
sanctions, fees and costs, and Reply to Answer of District Counsel dated February 9, 2007.
1. The Commissioner, on February 9, 2007, filed his Answer to Petition of taxpayer dated
December 9, 2006 and his Answer to taxpayer’s Supplement to Petition dated January 9, 2007.
In said Answer, District Counsel in essence agreed with the major allegations of the
Supplement if not all of the crucial elements of the Supplement. Therefore, summary judgment is
in order. Basically, no dispute in law or fact remains.
2. The IRS Notice of Determination in this CDPH case was written so poorly, so
incorrectly and so inaccurate that it amounts to harassment of tax victim. Since government
agencies are not allowed to use the law to harass, frighten and coerce in order to enforce
collection of taxes, the law has been violated. The IRS conduct in this case was so bad that
sanctions must be granted to encourage the agency to supervise its employees and for the IRS
agents to be more careful so as not to charge a citizen so incorrectly.
The Notice of Determination genuinely frightened taxpayer and his spouse. It was so bad
that it caused undue stress and mental anguish.
3. Petitioner filed his original Petition on December 9, 2006, which was a standard generic
petition to state taxpayers position and protect the record. However, the essence of the
Petitioner’s case was the Supplement to the Petition dated January 9, 2007.
4. Since supplement started with paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 stated:
“ The Notice of
Determination is so inaccurate and puzzling that Petitioner is not sure what it
says. Apparently, appeals has my case mixed up with somebody else. To start
with, the NOD lists
the tax periods, 97, 00,
01 and 02. However, the years involved are clearly indicated on the
CDPH request form as 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Then the appeals officer lists the date of CDP notice as
July 28, 2005 for all four years. But, the
date of the original
Notice of Right to a Hearing for all four years was February 27, 2006.
Further, the NOD dated November 20, 2006 lists the date
the CDP request was received by the
IRS as August 15, 2005 for all four
years. However, the NOD states on page 3 that the IRS
received the CDP request
within the 30-day time period. This means that they received it prior to
March 27, 2006.”
5. District Counsel agreed with the Supplement. Taxpayer also listed some other problems
with the Notice of Determination, which District Counsel admitted or at least did not deny.
Obviously, the IRS Appeals division had Petitioner’s CDPH case mixed up with the case of
another person.
6. District Counsel, in Answer to Petitioner’s Supplement on pages 4 and 5, items d., e.
and f., states totally erroneous, inaccurate and untrue information which has no relevance to this case. Said case involves years 2000, 2001, 20002 and 2003.
7. In essence, this case is over with. There is nothing important remaining in dispute.
8. The Answer to the Supplement has a few other relatively minor errors including
incorrect paragraphs.
9. Said Answer in paragraph 4, part 2 (Supplement), District Counsel claims and alleges
that a face-to-face hearing was offered. The Petitioner has no record of this. And, requests that
District Counsel furnish it.
10. District Counsel is unfairly and unjustly driving up Petitioner’s expenses and eating up
his resources. The District Counsel should have asked the Tax Court to remand this case to the
IRS Appeals division. However, using the overwhelming resources of the federal government,
District Counsel is attempting to browbeat pro se litigant who has no legal education and limited
resources. Therefore, fees, costs and sanctions simply must be granted.
11. Petitioner requests that this Court remand this case back to the IRS, and grant
Petitioner $25,000 in sanctions and expenses in order to encourage the highly paid IRS agents and
employees to respect the rights of the taxpayers.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy of this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.
_______________________________________ Date:
G.A. Patriot