US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC

Marian Patriot                          ) 
               Petitioner               )     DOCKET # __________
                                        )
  v.                                    )     Supplement to Petition for ReDetermination 
Commissioner Internal Revenue           )     of Notice of Determination on CDPH
              Respondent                ) 

Petitioner above named hereby files her Supplement to Petition for Re-Determination (Dated November 30, 2006) of Notice of Determination on CDPH based on the following grounds:

1. I filed my original Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing on request Form 12153 for tax year 2001 on May 3, 2006.

2. On December 27, 2006 I sent your office my substitute request for CDPH on form 12153 for tax year 2001. I also sent you my recall letter, which explained very clearly that I recalled and withdrew the old CDPH Request form and substituted it for the new CDPH Request form.

Please disregard the original CDPH Request form as if it never existed. The IRS does not like what I stated on the form.

3. The new substitute CDPH Request form is standard, correct and has been used in hundreds of cases. The IRS accepts this type of CDPH request and does not allege “frivolous or groundless” particulars.

The Internal Revenue code is very complex and difficult. Neither I nor anybody else understands it; however the information I used was not popular with the tax agents.

4. The IRS Notice of Determination Letter, for Tax year 2001 dated November 30, 2006 does not mention my recall letter and substitute CDPH Request form. Please ask the IRS appeals office, which issued the NOD, to reissue this NOD clearly stating their position on the recall letter and substitute Request form.

Due to the recall letter and substitute CDPH Request, most of the NOD is no longer material and relevant. The NOD is concerned almost completely concerned with the old “frivolous and groundless “positions. However all of these have been canceled and nullified. The substitute form does not have any political, religious or economic arguments and has never been found “frivolous and groundless, “even though it’s been used in hundreds of cases.

5. For tax years 2003, 2004, 2005 as well as 2001 the IRS has greatly inflated income figures from incorrect third-party payor data. Taxpayer is 64 years old, retired on social security and not employed full time. However taxpayer’s name and Social Security number were used by other people in a business enterprise. Somewhere somebody in the IRS needs to correct these figures. Taxpayer owes no income tax for those years and wants to meet with the IRS for some kind of settlement.

6. Under the ISSUES RAISED BY THE TAXPAYER, Appeals ruled that I claimed that income tax was voluntary and that I was not a taxpayer. This is not true. These statements may have been in the original CDPH Request, which was withdrawn, but it is not mentioned in my amended CDPH Request, which is to be considered by Appeals. I presented several relevant issues.

7. Under ISSUES RAISED BY THE TAXPAYER, Appeals falsely stated my position. The positions they claim here as “frivolous” were withdrawn and no longer exist. The issues raised by Taxpayer are listed in my Amended CDPH Request. This Amended 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.

8. I have relevant matters to discuss at the face-to-face conference including collections alternatives and the matters mentioned in my Amended 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.

The requirements of various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining to the Collection Process have not been met.

9. 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:_________________
Marian Patriot
1776 Patriot Way
Freedomvilles, KS 12345