January 20, 2007
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
VIDYA FREEMAN, )
PETITIONER, )
) Docket # 16248-06 “L”
V. ) REPLY TO ANSWER TO
) AMENDED PETITION
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
RESPONDENT, )
Petitioner above named, hereby files her Reply to Answer to Amended Petition dated January 8, 2007, based on the following grounds.
1. On December 7, 2006 Petitioner filed her Supplement To Petition for Redetermination of Notice of Determination on CDPH, which was dated July 28, 2006.
2. Respondent filed their answer to this on January 8, 2007 that was mislabeled “Answer to Amendment to Petition.” Taxpayer did not file an Amended Petition but did file a Supplement to her Petition. The Commissioner is free to label taxpayer’s pleadings as he wishes, but should inform the pro se litigant that he was changing the name of her pleadings.
This change created much confusion and misunderstanding to Petitioner; who has no legal education. District Counsel is taking advantage of pro se litigants and harassing them.
3. The answer is incomplete, confusing, mislabeled, misleading and utterly unfair. For the reasons listed below, this answer should be stricken from the record and district counsel should be required to file an answer which is understandable.
For such poor penmanship and flagrant untrue statements, this court should admonish District council.
4. Again and again DC denies the obvious. For example in paragraph five of said answer, he denies a letter which was attached to the pleadings. How can he deny a letter which is right in front of him?
This same error is repeated in paragraph 8 where District Council denies Petitioner’s 12153 form and her cover letter. Both of these are in IRS file on the taxpayer, which District Counsel has in his office. This form and the cover letter are crucial to the taxpayer’s case, but CIR’s Attorney holds them in one hand and denies them with the other hand.
5. As to paragraph 6 in said answer, the IRS highly paid attorney denies weather the case agent wrote any more letters. An examination of the case folder or a phone call to the agent with whom he is working on this case, would have revealed an answer to this important issue.
6. Due to the failure of District Counsel to file an answer that states the government’s true position and denies obvious facts, taxpayer is unable to fathom the government’s case. Therefore she is unable to proceed.
For the court system to work, counsel must file responsive pleadings that frame the issues and highlight the disputed facts. Once the tax service states their real position, then the taxpayer can make an intelligent, informed decision to settle the case or continue with litigation.
An unresponsive responsive pleading hurts all of the parties and causes them and the court to waste resources.
7. Petition has a simple case. The IRS Appeals Division made serious violation of the procedure rules. The tax court has ruled against the IRS position innumerable times. The CIR has no chance of winning this case. His able and competent Attorney should be required to file a correct answer, so the Judge assigned to this case can make a quick decision and taxpayer can reduce her expenditures that she cannot afford to waste.
Since the malfeasant of District Council created the problem, Respondent should be require to pay Petitioner $5,000 in sanctions. Further since the government’s position flies in the face of numerous decisions and is not supported by any court anywhere, the CIR should also face sanctions for prolonging this case against a pro se litigant with meager resources.
8. In conclusion, this court should grant sanctions against District Counsel just as this court has granted thousands against pro se litigants who also made mistakes.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date, I properly sent a copy of this pleading to opposing council.
__________________________ January 20, 2007
Vidya Freeman
New