US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON DC 

Charles M. Patriot                    )
Petitioner                            )   		DOCKET # 3890-XXX
V.                                    )
Commissioner Internal Revenue         )  		Reply to Answer 
Respondent                            )

Petitioner named-above hereby files his Reply to the Answer of the IRS dated April 18, 2007 based on the following grounds:

  1. The Answer of the Commissioner is vague, confusing and should be rewritten. It denies the obvious which causes additional expenses and work for a pro se litigant unschooled in the law. Further, respondent does not admit the obvious; which put a terrible burden on a petitioner, a citizen representing himself.
  2. The biggest problem is the answer does not have paragraphs numbers for the paragraphs. And then the paragraph numbers skip around. After paragraph number 4 on page 2, District Counsel answers “13. through 15.” She skipped nine paragraphs. Then on page 3 after denying the signature block with unfathomable language, she answered paragraph nine for the second time.

    On top of page 4, District Counsel answers paragraphs “12.through 15.” even though on page 2, she had already denied paragraph 13 through 15.

  3. The worst of all: at the bottom of page 2, District Counsel denies Petitioner’s date, signature, name and address (his signature block.) DC even denied Petitioner’s zip code.
  4. The Commissioner has not denied paragraphs 5-8 of this petition. Since the Commissioner has not denied these paragraphs, he in effect has admitted them. Failure to deny is an admission.

    If the commissioner meant to deny paragraphs 5-8, but forgot to, he should be penalized for not correcting his mistake in the last few months. This court should declare those paragraphs admitted and not opposed by the opposing party.

  5. Twice District Counsel denied taxpayer an in-person hearing even though that issue is well settled in that the tax court has ruled in numerous cases that taxpayers are entitled to face-to-face hearing.
  6. In any event, the Tax Court ruled in the case of Marett v CIR docket # 4048-061 that even if one non-frivolous issue was raised, taxpayer is entitled to a face-to-face hearing. Taxpayer’s request had no frivolous or Constitutional arguments, has been used by hundreds of taxpayers and has been accepted by the Appeals Division and the tax court as a request sufficient to qualify for an in-person hearing.
  7. The said answer ends with a general denial which hides the Commissioner’s position.
  8. In his Supplement to Petition for Re-determination dated June 25, 2007, once again taxpayer stated his case very clearly. However, the CIR has not filed an answer to this supplement and is therefore in default.

    With no objection on record, Petitioner requests that this court declare the supplement to petition to be accepted in toto. The high-paid Attorney for the CIR has not denied the allegations in the supplement to petition and therefore these allegations should be accepted as the fact by this court.

  9. For failure to file an answer, taxpayer requests that the IRS be sanctioned and penalized.
  10. The answer is incomplete confusing, erroneous and does not appraise pro se petitioner of the government’s position. Since taxpayer has not been informed of the commissioner’s real position or the matters in dispute, taxpayer is unable to prepare his defense. Unless the opposing party clearly states their issues, the moving party does not know what to do.

    Therefore, District Counsel should be ordered by this court to re-write her answer to the petition and her answer to the supplement to the petition in a matter that is clear and consist plus sufficiently appraises pro se petitioner of the government’s real position.

  11. Since the government’s answer was so confusing and had so many errors, the commissioner should be sanctioned or at least reimburse Petitioner for his costs and expense of asking the court to correct her mistakes. Taxpayer requests penalties against the IRS under section 6637 for such sloppy pleadings.
  12. In conclusion, the answer of the Commissioner should be disregarded or dismissed because of the false statements and the failure to appraise Petitioner of Respondent’s true position.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.

___________________________                  August 20, 2007
Charles M. Patriot 
Mainsfield, OH