U.S. TAX COURT
G. A. Patriot )
Petitioner ) DOCKET #16000 – 000
V. )
)
Commissioner Internal Revenue ) ) Supplement To Petition
Respondent ) For Re-Determination of
) Notice of Determination on CDPH
Petitioner named above hereby
files his Supplement to Petition dated Dec 9, 2006 for Re-Determination
of Notice of Determination dated November 20, 2006.
1. 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.
2. The NOD stated several
times that Petitioner raised frivolous issues in his CDPH request. This is
totally and completely erroneous, false and fictitious. The CDPH request
contained issues right out of IRC 6330. No frivolous, groundless,
constitutional, religious or political arguments were listed in the CDPH
request.
The CDPH request standard
form which was prepared by experts and copied by Patriot,
has been used in thousands of CDPH cases and is totally accepted by the courts.
See the following Tax Court cases: Nelson vs. CIR, Tax Court
No.13212-05L dated November 7 2005; Shell vs. CIR, No. 20188-05L on May
31 2006; Marett vs. CIR, No. 4048-061
on July 7 2006.
None of the issues raised by Patriot
are found on the list of frivolous pleadings published by the
IRS nor listed in their pamphlet on tax protester arguments. Further,
the Appeals Team Manager did not mention or highlight any specific frivolous
arguments raised by Patriot. Of course, she could not because none were brought
by taxpayer.
3. Since the NOD is so
erroneous and inaccurate, the IRS should be required to pay Petitioner
sanctions in the amount of $25,000.
4. The Appeals Office did not schedule a hearing even though
the law provides for hearings. Petitioner specifically requested a
hearing, which of course means an in-person hearing. See the following
tax court cases: Nelson vs. CIR, Tax Court No.13212-05L dated November 7
2005; Shell vs. CIR, No. 20188-05L on May 31 2006; Marett
vs. CIR, No. 4048-061 on July 7 2006.
The initial CDPH request by Petitioner clearly requested a
hearing with tape recorder. However, the settlement officer only offered a
telephone or correspondence hearing in her letter dated June 30, 2006
5. In the case of Marett vs. CIR, supra, the Tax Court
ruled:
“ Where a taxpayer advances both
valid and frivolous arguments, we have allowed the taxpayer to pursue the
former while cautioning the taxpayer to abandon the latter. See Keene v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003) (remanding case to Appeals Office by admonishing
the taxpayer not to advance frivolous arguments); Bean v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2006-88 (Government’s motion for summary judgment was denied because
the record “did not foreclose the possibility that [the taxpayer] might have
raised valid arguments had a hearing been held.”). Respondent’s internal
operating procedures appear consistent with the Court’s approach. See Internal
Revenue Manual 8.6.1.2.5.(2)
(May 13, 2004) (“Face-to-face conferences will no longer be offered to or
allowed for taxpayers who only raise frivolous issues”) (emphasis
added).”
7. Petitioner has been accused of raising frivolous arguments, however, her request for
the hearing raised all non-frivolous arguments. According to the Marett case above, he is entitled a regular hearing if she
raised one or more non-frivolous arguments.
8. Taxpayer responded to the
letter of Settlement Officer dated June 30, 2006 with his letter dated July 12,
2006 which is attached as Exhibit A. This letter clearly explained Taxpayer’s
position
9. The Settlement Officer
ignored Taxpayer’s said letter of July 12, 2006. Further, she falsely stated in
her letter of August 23, 2006: “ I never received the
information from you “.
She also denied the procedure
requested by Taxpayer in his CDPH request.
On September 5, 2006,
Taxpayer again wrote Settlement Officer noting that she acted like she did not
receive his prior letter and attached a copy of his July 12, 2006 letter. Then,
Taxpayer mailed five more copies of this letter to Settlement Officer at
various IRS office addresses.
10. The NOD on page 3 stated
that Tax victim did not respond to Settlement Officer letter
of June. And further, Settlement Officer stated that Petitioner did not respond
either to the second letter of August, 2006, even though Taxpayer made mutlple submissions of this letter.
Taxpayer has a certificate of
mailing for every one of these letters. Appeals Team Manager has filed false
and erroneous statements against Petitioner and should be punished for flagrant
dereliction of duty.
11. I have relevant matters
to discuss at the face-to-face conference including collections alternatives
and the matters mentioned in my Amended Request. Collection alternatives can be
discussed at the hearing 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 my Petition
which was filed separately earlier.
12. The requirements of
various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining to the IRS have
not been met. Further, the actions taken were not appropriate under the
circumstances. Tax victim did not receive that which he requested in his CDPH
request as he was entitled to.
13. In conclusion, this
supplement explains my position and I request that the Court remand this case
to Appeals Office and order the IRS to schedule a face-to-face hearing.
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE: I do hereby certify on
this date that a copy this pleading was
sent properly to opposing counsel.
____________________
Date: December 29, 2006
G. A. Patriot
1776 Patriot Way
Bonita Springs, USA