Charles Patriot, at al            )          	                             
Petitioner                        )     DOCKET # 3666-07L
                                  )        
V.                                )     Supplement to Petition for ReDetermination 
Commissioner Internal Revenue     )      of Notice of Determination on CDPH
Respondent                        )

Petitioner above-named hereby files his Supplement to Petition for Re-Determination of Notice of Determination on CDPH to add to and amplify my previously filed Petition for Re-determination, dated ______________. This supplement is not an amended Petition but may be so classified by the Clerk’s office. If so, I hereby incorporate by reference my said Petition.

  1. I filed my timely Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing on request Form 12153 for tax year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 on or about August 12, 2006. The Notice of Determination is dated February 6, 2007.
  2. For tax years in question, the IRS has greatly inflated income figures from incorrect third-party payer data. Taxpayer owes no income tax for those years and wants to meet with the IRS for some kind of settlement.
  3. My CDPH was filed timely and I am entitled to an in-person hearing as explained in my Petition. My CDPH request contains no groundless or frivolous material whatsoever. The statements in NOD otherwise are false, fictious, and constitute harassment against me. I demand that the IRS quit making false accusations against me and to stop accusing me of what other people did.

    If my earlier correspondence to the IRS included positions now classified as frivolous, I now hereby withdraw them. That correspondence, if any, is not part of my CDPH case and not included in my CDPH request. Therefore, I request that you remove these from your records and not harass me anymore. My CDPH request is my official position and you can ignore any other positions, if any.

  4. Congress requires only that the petition be filed timely, with one of five approved positions. Whether the appeals office wrote me any letters or not, they are not part of the CDPH case. Any letters I wrote not attached to the CDPH are also not part of this case and can not be used to deny my in-person hearing.
  5. Congress says I am entitled to a hearing. The US Tax Court is ruled in five cases (below) that solidly hold that I am entitled to a face-to-face hearing if my CDPH request form has at least one legal position allowed by Congress. My CDPH request does in fact have one or more acceptable agreements.

    My CDPH request was hand-copied from a standard one which has been used in hundreds of CDPH cases and has long been acceptable to the IRS and tax court.

  6. In any event, the Appeals Division can not deny me my hearing because of some unofficial letters even if they included frivolous arguments.

    The settlement office did not send to me the computer transcripts of each of the years in question or the other documents I requested.

  7. Under the ISSUES RAISED BY THE TAXPAYER, Appeals admitted that I asked for an OIC. That is true and therefore, I am entitled to an in-person hearing. Then the NOD stated: “Since non-frivolous issues were not presented, the conference was conducted by mail.” This sentence is not true.
  8. I am a person entitled to tax-lien withdrawal for the following reasons:
    1. The filing of the notice was not in accordance with administrative procedures.
    2. Withdrawal of such notice will facilitate the collection of the tax liability.
    3. I did not have an opportunity to present specific information or documents which would show that withdrawal of the NFTL would accomplish A or B above. The Office of Appeals denied a hearing and thereby denied a chance for my lawyer to present the necessary proofs. Before the hearing I would have been in full compliance and would have been eligible and OIC. However, no hearing was schedule and I was denied a chance to prove my compliance and eligibility.
  9. Appeals falsely stated my position. The positions they claim as “frivolous” never existed. The issues raised by me are listed in my CDPH Request. This Request did not have any political or Constitutional issues or anything that the IRS has classified as “frivolous.” I deny that this is a frivolous claim.
  10. I have relevant matters to discuss at the face-to-face conference including collections alternatives and the matters mentioned in my 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.
  11. I am clearly entitled to a face-to-face hearing, which was denied. In my CDPH request I requested manly relevant, non-frivolous issues. Therefore I am entitled to a face-to-face hearing. The requirements of various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining to the Collection Process have not been met.
  12. 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, as explained in these three 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 hand-written CDPH request by Petitioner clearly requested a hearing on more than one eligiable legal issue. However, the settlement officer only offered a telephone or correspondence hearing in her letter.

  13. 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).”
  14. 14. Petitioner has been accused of raising frivolous arguments; however, his request for the hearing raised all non-frivolous arguments. According to the Marett case above, he is entitled a regular hearing if he raised one or more non-frivolous arguments.
  15. 15. 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: June 25, 2007
Charles Patriot, et al.
1776 Patriot Way
Mainsfield, OH 44905