US TAX COURT
Paul Freeman ) )
Petitioner ) DOCKET # 19880-06L ) v. ) )Commissioner of Internal Revenue ) Respondent ) Supplement to Amended Petition ) for Re-Determination of ) Notice of Determination on CDPH Petitioner above named hereby
files his Supplement to his Amended Petition for Re-determination of Notice of
Determination on CDPH which was dated March 7, 2007. The Notice of
Determination under Section 6320 and/or 6330 was dated on August 30, 2006.
1.
A recall letter and a substitute Request for a Collection Due
Process hearing was sent in to the IRS Appeals Office on March 7, 2007(copy
attached).
2. Since Petitioner sent in a Substitute CDPH request,
please ignore the original request.
3. On March 7, 2007 Petitioner sent the Amended Petition(copy attached) to the Tax Court which is based on
the Substitute CDPH request.
4. On March 9, 2007 Petitioner sent in a
letter requesting the Tax Court to ignore the original Petition and use the
Amended Petition.
Therefore please use only the Amended Petition and the Substitute CDPH
request form.
5. The Substitute CDPH request to
the IRS Appeals and the Amended Petition to the Tax Court are procedurally correct
and meet requirements of IRC 6330 and have numerous
requests for collection alternatives.
Therefore the IRS Appeals Notice
of Determination dated August 30, 2006 is not valid and does not pertain to the
new CDPH request and therefore is withdrawn and a
new NOD should be issued based on the new CDPH request.
6. The Tax Court, in other cases, has often
noted Petitioners may have done their paperwork wrong and has given the
Petitioners a second chance to do their paperwork correctly. In several cases,
the Tax Court judges have accepted
the Substitute CDPH and allowed the case to be reopened using the procedurally
correct form.
The IRS Code is complex and
confusing. I had talked with so-called experts on CDPH and I found out their
expertise was not acceptable to the IRS.
7.
Petitioner admits that he may have written to the IRS in previous
years on issues that the IRS may have classified as religious, constitutional,
or patriotic. Petitioner knows this is unpopular with the IRS.
In his recall letter dated March 7, 2007 Petitioner recanted his
original CDPH request form which apparently was unpopular with the IRS. The new
Substitute CDPH request is procedurally correct.
8. Petitioner mailed to the IRS his original CDPH request on June 20,
2005. In said request Petitioner pointed out that the IRS in their Notices had
“mathematically incorrect” figures against Petitioner. IRC 6330 states very
clearly that taxpayer is entitled to an in-person hearing if the CDP request
notes among other things, “procedural irregularities”. In that original CDPH request “Mathematical
figures incorrect” is a request for correction of “procedural irregularities”.
Therefore Petitioner is entitled to an
in-person hearing.
9. In the case of “Marett vs. CIR” docket number 4048-06L dated July
7, 2006, Special Trial Judge Armen ruled that the taxpayer is entitled to a
face-to-face hearing if he made a request for a hearing and listed one purpose of the hearing for which the IRC
6330 classifies as a relevant issue, including challenges to the
appropriateness of collection actions.
Taxpayer
is entitled to a face-to-face hearing if he raises any position mentioned in
the law even if the rest of the request raised issues classified as frivolous and
groundless by the IRS.
10. In conclusion, this supplement explains my
position and I request that the Court remand this case to the IRS Appeals
Office and order the IRS to schedule a face-to-face hearing.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING: I do hereby certify
on this date that a copy of this pleading was sent properly to opposing
counsel.
____________________________________ March 16, 2007 Paul Freeman, pro se. 1776 Patriot Way Lynnwood , USA cc: Shawn L. Barrett, Attorney
Tax Court Bar No. BS0640
Room 2710, M/S W670
