UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Harry Patriot }
Petitioner } Case No. _____________
vs. } SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO OVERTURN
United States of America } IRS CDPH DETERMINATION
Respondent }
PETITIONER Harry Patriot hereby files his Supplement to his petition to overturn IRS collection due process determination issued pursuant to 26 USC 6330 filed in this court on October 3, 2006, based upon the following grounds:
1. IRS sent Patriot his CDPH notice for the lien under IRS 6320 on 30 March 30, 2006. Patriot filed timely with the IRS his CDPH Request form on April 15, 2006.
Patriot clearly requested an in-person hearing and wrote the Appeals Division some letters proving clearly that he was entitled to a face-to-face hearing.
2. September 20, 2006, Sharon Patterson, Appeals Team Manager, sent Petitioner the Notice of Determination Decision Letter denying Petitioner’s request for a
face-to-face hearing allowed under IRC 6330. Ms. Patterson is not an Appeals Officer and is not authorized to conduct a CPDH under IRC 6330.
Ms. Kathleen Bell, Settlement Officer, asked Petitioner to file numerous tax returns without making a determination that any tax forms were due; and did not allow
Petitioner enough time to collect the vast amount of information needed to complete these forms; and did not afford Petitioner an opportunity to discuss important immunity issues.
3. Settlement Officer determined the taxpayer raised only frivolous issues. That is a blatant lie. Upon request, Appeals could not find or list any that Patriot used.
Petitioner requested a CDPH to discuss collection alternatives, procedure irregulaties, etc. Patriot’s request form listed the purposes listed by Congress and not one item on the tax collectors “frivolous” list. Further, Congress does not preclude any issues, including frivolous issues. The elected representatives set the standards for CDPH, as well as every contact IRS has with any citizens.
4. At a face-to-face hearing, Petitioner, with legal representative, would have presented the collection alternatives and necessary forms. Congress has not required taxpayer to present alternatives and forms in advance of the hearing. Petitioner had withdrawn all issues IRS had considered frivolous, if any.
5. The law says hearings should be conducted by an Appeals Officer. This case was held by a Settlement Officer. When Settlement Officer demanded the numerous 1040 forms, she did not provide Petitioner with the section of IRC 6330 which required Petitioner to submit this documentation.
6. Appeals scheduled a telephone hearing for Aug 7. Patriot notified them by letter of July 28th that he would not be able
to be in such proceeding. The appeals team manager denied him a face-to-face hearing for unknown reasons.
7. The form used in Patriot CDPH Request has been accepted by the IRS in hundreds of other cases, and does not
contain any political, ethical, or constitutional arguments which are true even though unpopular with the
IRS.
8. In conclusion, Petitioner requests that the CDPH Notice of Determination and Decision Letters be overturned;
the Notice of Determination and Decision Letters, both dated September 20, 2006, be withdrawn and this case be
remanded to the Appeals Division and a proper face-to-face CDPH hearing be held.
Wherefore request relief above.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date, I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
____________________________ October 3, 2006
Harry Patriot, Petitioner pro se
1776 Freedom Way
Freedom, Georgia 12345