UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Gary Patriot                           ) 
Petitioner                             )
                                       )  Case No.__________________________ 
vs                                     )  SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO OVERTURN 
                                       ) 
United States of America               )  IRS CDPH DETERMINATION
Respondent                             )

PETITIONER Gary Patriot hereby files his Supplement to his Petition to overturn IRS collection due process determination issued pursuant to 26 USC 6330 filed in this court on November ___________ 2006, for tax year 2001 based upon the following grounds:

1. IRS sent Patriot his CDPH notice for the levy under IRS 6330 on _____________. Patriot filed timely with the IRS his CDPH Request form on September 11, 2006.  Patriot clearly requested an in-person hearing and wrote the Appeals Division some letters proving clearly that he was entitled to a face-to-face hearing.
2. On October 23, 2006, RH Carr, Appeals Team Manager, sent Petitioner the Notice of Determination Decision Letter denying Petitioner’s request for a face-to-face hearing allowed under IRC 6330. Ms. Patterson is not an Appeals Officer and is not authorized to conduct a CPDH under IRC 6330.
3. IRS is sending copies of important tax records pertaining to Smith to one Peggy Denby, North Charleston, SC. She is not Patriot ’s representive, does not have his POA and is not authorized to received documents pertaining to him.
   Please desist in sending her any of Patriot’s tax information. I do not know who this lady is or how she got involved in Patriot ’s case. Please send me any information that you have about her.
4. The IRS has my case all messed up. They make numerous references about other people and actions of other people. None of what they say applies to Patriot, but may apply to Ms. Denby and her clients. I admit that Gary Patriot is a common name, but my social security number is or should be unique. Please do an agency check to see if I am a victim of identity theft.
5. Petitioner requested a CDPH to discuss collection alternatives, procedure irregulaties, etc. Patriot’s request form listed the purposes listed by Congress and not one item on the tax collectors “frivolous” list. Further, Congress does not preclude any issues, including frivolous issues. The elected representatives set the standards for CDPH, as well as every contact IRS has with any citizens.
6. At a face-to-face hearing Petitioner, with legal representative, would have presented the collection alternatives and necessary forms. Congress has not required taxpayer to present alternatives and forms in advance of the hearing. Petitioner had withdrawn all issues IRS had considered frivolous, if any.
7. The form used in Smith’s CDPH Request has been accepted by the IRS in hundreds of other cases, and does not contain any political, ethical, or constitutional arguments which are true even though unpopular with the IRS.
8. Taxpayer made numerous requests for tape recording. This was refused because of the face-to face conference was denied. Appeals scheduled a telephone conference for Smith with his POA on September 19, 2006. Unfortunately Patriot did not have a POA at that time or any time.
   

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

____________________________ November 17, 2006