UNITED  STATES  TAX  COURT
                                           Washington, D. C.

Dennis Freeman                        )
 Petitioner                           )Docket  No.   6523-07L
                                      )
 v.                                   ) Motion to Vacate
                                      )
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,     ) 
Respondent   	 
         

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule 162, the Court is petitioned to vacate the decision dated May 7, 2008, pertaining to the Stay of Collections under IRC §6330(d) and the Order dated May 7, 2008 which decided this case for Respondent, both issued by the Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge USTC, based on the following grounds:

1. The decision on the removal of the automatic stay under §6330(d) was entered without prior notice to taxpayer and no motions were filed on this removal by Respondent. Without notice or due process of law, the Court entered this decision sui sponte. Petitioner has numerous facts and legal arguments to refute this issue, but was unable to file them due to lack of notice. This issue should be reopened so that taxpayer can file his facts and case law in opposition.

2. As to the removal of the Stay, Petitioner needs to know the position of Respondent as well as its facts and the law on this issue. This is new law without any precedent and should be briefed by the parties.

3. Petitioner is a pro se litigant and is unschooled in law and taxes; Taxpayer does not understand the Internal Revenue Code and Tax Court rules. Therefore he needs advance knowledge of this Court’s position on any new issue.

4. On March 18, 2008, Petitioner filed his Recall Letter (attached as Exhibit A), recalling his CDPH Request form which consisted of positions classified by the IRS as frivolous and groundless. The new CDPH with attachments contain no frivolous positions or any legal arguments published on the IRS list of forbidden legal issues.

The Appeals Division had notified Taxpayer to file a new CDPH request without frivolous arguments, which Taxpayer did.

5. Petitioner is unschooled in the law and did not know how to file a CDPH request in a manner acceptable to the authorities. He did the best he could and he sought assistance from persons claiming to be knowledgeable in this manner (Did he pay anybody). The information used by Petitioner turned out to be unacceptable and was withdrawn as quickly as possible.

The substitute CDPH request has been used in hundreds of cases and has always been found acceptable by the tax service and the Tax Court.

6. However, the Court’s Order ignored the new positions which are listed by the US Congress. Therefore this case should be reopened and the Court have a chance to decide on the new and acceptable Collection Hearing Request.

7. On March 18, 2008 Petitioner also filed his Answer to Stipulations of CIR which this Court ignored by error.

8. Due to the new and acceptable positions of taxpayer, the decision on the stay and the finding in this case are incorrect, therefore reopening of this case is in order. Also District Counsel should have an opportunity to state the Government’s positions in opposition to Petitioner’s new positions.

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

_____________________			Date: June 3, 2008                                 
Dennis Freeman
Greenville, SC 29607