WANE M., )
Petitioner ) DOCKET NO. 40xxx
) OPPOSITION TO MOTION
) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
vs. )
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
Respondent )
Petitioner Thomas M. hereby files his Opposition to the IRS Motion for Summary Judgment dated May 9, 2006, based on the following grounds.
1. District Counsel is a bully and falsely accusses taxpayer of raising frivolous arguments. District Counsel has not produced one word or one sentence of taxpayer that is listed in the IRS well-known list of frivious arguments.
2. The IRS claims that positions classified as frivolous arguments preclude taxpayer from his lawfully entitled hearing. The tax collectors are dead wrong; Petitioner by law is entitled to his personal hearing even if he raised frivolous arguments, which Petitioner did not. Therefore, this case should be remanded to IRS Appeal Department and the Motion for Summary Judgment is dismissed.
3. Petitioner is entitled to file for collection alternatives and when he does, he must fill out OIC forms, the financial statement and be current in filing tax returns lawfully due. Petitioner can and will present those forms at the requested hearing. The elected represenation of the people did not require that these be mailed in before the hearing.
4. District Council and Appeals were wrong in making this a prerequisite for the hearing. Marett did not have time to do such anyway.
5. Petitioner knows that IRS has rules for collection alternatives, OIC, etc. and Petitioner will meet them all. However, he was unable to do all that paperwork just prior to the hearing.
6. Petitioner has filed all the forms required by law.
7. Petitioner is by law eligible to file for collection alternatives and by law; he can file the necessary forms at the hearing or one (1) day before. No law requires submissions weeks beforehand.
8. How could Ms. Kelley deny Petitioner his OIC when he not yet requested such or filed for it! She did abuse her discretion for rejecting forms that were not filed and she had never seen them.
9. Petitioner is an American citizen and entitled to the protection under IRC 6330. He has made good faith effort to comply with all IRS laws. However, the IRS Code is so complex and confusing that nobody is in compliance. Taxpayer has no legal experience or education in tax or law and is dreadfully confused about the entire proceeding.
10. The law mandates a CDP hearing as taxpayer has met all the requirements enacted by the Congress.
11. He has not submitted any specious arguments, has meaningful issues, so that a face to face hearing could be productive. Petitioner was prejudged because he had no time to submit volumnious forms and documentation; plus he had no opportunity to talk with the tax authorities about his OIC, etc.
12. Taxpayer has asserted no “obvious tax protest agenda” and DC knows it. He should be admonished by the court for these false, malicious, slanderous accusations.
13. Also, since district counsel has hurled the accusations; he should offer proof or submit just one sentence from the honest taxpayer that has been so classified; otherwise, he should withdraw that scurrilous charge and apology to Marett.
14. Summary judgment should be denied to the government, and if granted to anybody, then it should be in favor of Petitioner.
In Conclusion, taxpayer’s statutory right to a hearing should be upheld by the court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this Date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing Counsel and to Tax Court in Washington, DC.
__________________________________ Date: 5-18-06
Wane M.
Rockingham, SC 20030