UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Teddy Freeman, )
Petitioner, )
) Docket No. 13041-000
v )
) Reply To Objection of CIR To
) Motion To Vacate
)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, )
Respondent, )
Petitioner hereby files his Reply to Objection of CIR to Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate/Reconsider dated March 7 2007, based on the following reasons:
1. District Council claims he is unable to find the Tax Court case upon which Petitioner relies. This case is Marett vs. CIR with the date and the docket number listed in Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider.
This case clearly explains that in the CDPH Request, if Petitioner raised one issue authorized by Congress within a host of issues classified as “frivolous or groundless”, the taxpayer is entitled to an in-person hearing.
Admittedly, Petitioner’s request and pleadings were not that of a highly paid law school graduate as district counsel and that taxpayer’s position was inarticulate or poorly explained, but taxpayer did request something that Congress says the IRS must provide.
2. Therefore, the denial of the face-to-face hearing was wrong and a remand is in order.
3. Internal Revenue Code is so complex and confusing that nobody knows what it says. In fact, even though clearly mandated by law, the Commissioner did not mail to taxpayer the Notice of Deficiency or the Notice and Demand letter.
The Commissioner’s failure to carry out his statutory duties can be raised at anytime. Petitioner did raise the issue, though belatedly.
The tax court has a duty to decide on the interest of justice standard and in this case, weigh on the scales of justice the fact that the Petitioner though misguided did make an honest effort to do what the law required.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing council.
_______________________ Date: April 22, 2007
Teddy Freeman, Pro Se
1776 Patriot Way
Alizuipua, PA