US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC

Don G.                           )
                                 )
Petitioner,                      )                           
                                 )   Docket # 18680-XXX
 V.                              )
                                 )
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE )                                      
Respondent                       )

REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION

Petitioner above named hereby files his Reply to Answer to Petition, as Amended dated December 14, 2007, based on the following grounds:

  1. Petitioner filed his Petition for Re-Determination of Notice of Determination on CDPH, which was dated August 14, 2007.
  2. Respondent filed an “Answer to Petition, as Amended” dated December 14, 2007.
  3. The answer is incomplete, confusing, misleading and unfair. For the reasons listed below, the answer should be stricken from the record and the Commissioner should be required to file an answer which is understandable. For such flagrant untrue statements, this Court should admonish Respondent’s counsel.
  4. For example, in said Answer, paragraph 1, second unnumbered subparagraph, respondent admits that the Notice of Determination was mailed, but then denies that my lawful request for a face-to face CDPH was denied.
  5. Again, under paragraph 3, respondent denies that petitioner complied with the extra requirement to not raise political, Constitutional and religious concerns. This court should require respondent to specify the grounds for this denial, since petitioner has complied. If respondent denies this, respondent must provide in specificity, the basis of such denial.
  6. Paragraph 4, respondent denies “allegations for lack of information or knowledge.” It appears that respondent is denying that petitioner is not required to submit these irregular preconditions. Respondent should give basis for such denial or at minimum, give petitioner the law that does require such preconditions to a face-to-face CDPH.
  7. Paragraph 5, respondent’s answer is “Denies.” Respondent denies the IRS withheld a face-to face hearing? This is untrue and a deception before this Court.
  8. Paragraph 6 and 7, respondent denies “factual allegations” which were cited Tax Court cases requiring an in-person hearing and common definitions found in Webster’s Dictionary of Law and Black’s Law Dictionary. Petitioner finds this confusing, misleading and unfair.
  9. Also, confusing, misleading and unfair is the respondent’s repeated use of admitting “that petitioner is entitled to a judicial review of respondent’s determination that the Notice of Federal Lien filing was appropriate, as provided in I.R.C. § 6330(d)” and then “denies remaining allegations to the extent that they are factual allegations.” This occurs in paragraphs 11,12 through 14, and 15.

SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LIEN OR LEVY ACTION (COLLECTION ACTION) PETITION FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF CDPH.

  1. Paragraph 2, respondent denies second sentence “for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.” Sentence 2 merely stated “Collection alternatives can be discussed at the hearing and the necessary forms can be submitted at the hearing.” Respondent repeatedly denies the obvious.
  2. Paragraph 4 respondent submits exhibit A and “alleges that the contents speak for themselves.” Petitioner agrees that the contents of exhibit A show that petitioner was denied his requested face-to-face hearing. Petitioner submits exhibits C which is a copy of his reply letter dated May 10, 2007, to exhibit A.
  3. Paragraph 6 respondent submits exhibit B and “alleges that the contents speak for themselves.” Petitioner agrees that the contents of exhibit B show that petitioner was denied his requested face-to-face hearing. Petitioner submits exhibit D which is a copy of his reply letter dated June 19, 2007, to exhibit B.
  4. Paragraphs 5 & 7, respondent admits receipt of both said letters (exhibit C & D) yet denies the contents of both.
  5. Paragraph 10 & 11, respondent “denies respondent erred as alleged.” What was the alleged error? Again this is an attempt by respondent to confuse petitioner and mislead the court.
  6. The respondent has failed to file an answer that states the government’s true position and the respondent has denied obvious facts. Therefore, petitioner is unable to fathom the government’s case and is unable to proceed in a manner that will satisfy the truth and clarity required by the Tax Court.

    For the court system to work, counsel must file responsive pleadings that frame the issues and highlight the disputed facts. Once the IRS states its real position, then the petitioner can make an intelligent, informed decision to settle the case or continue with litigation. An unresponsive responsive pleading hurts all of the parties which cause them and the court to waste resources.

  7. Petitioner has a simple case. The IRS Appeals Division made serious violations of the procedure rules. The Tax Court has ruled against the IRS position innumerable times. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s 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 Petitioner can reduce his expenditures that he cannot afford to waste.

    Petitioner is a pro-se litigant and is doing his best to abide by the complex rules and procedures set forth in the incomprehensible Internal Revenue Code.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests relief as stated in Petitioner’s Petition and Supplement be granted with a proper face-to-face hearing in a location convenient for Petitioner.

______________________________________     Date:  
  Petitioner pro pria
  Address:  Marlborough, MA