Warren Patriot }
Petitioner } Case No. xxxxxxx
vs. } SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO
} OVERTURN IRS CDPH DETERMINATION
}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA }
}
Respondent }
}
______________________________________ }
PETITIONER Warren 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 August 29, 2005, based upon the following grounds:
1. August 9, 2005, Denise Traum, Appeals Team Manager, sent Petitioner the Determination Letters denying Petitioner’s request for a face-to-face hearing allowed under IRC 6330.
Ms. Traum is not an Appeals Officer and is not authorized to conduct a CPDH under IRC 6330.
2. Mr. J. Feist, 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. Petitioner requested to discuss collection alternatives. 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 Petitioner had withdrawn all issues IRS had considered frivolous.
5. The law says hearings should be conducted by an Appeals Officer. This case was held by a Settlement Officer.
6. When Settlement Officer demanded the numerous 1040 forms, he did not provide Petitioner with the section of IRC 6330 which required Petitioner to submit this documentation.
7. Petitioner,Patriot, timely filed his first CDPH request on April 15, 2005 which included a two page attachment with numerous questions which were unanswered.
Petitioner,Patriot, timely filed a second request on April 27, 2005 which included a five page attachment The attachment is very unpopular with the IRS but included important information.
8. Petitioner,Patriot, filed an amended request for a CDPH on July 26, 2005 whereby he took positions which were
acceptable to IRS and copied right out of IRC 6330.
The amended CDPH request was accompanied by a cover letter which states:
Dear J. Feist;
Thank you for your letters dated June 20, 2005. This is a timely response to your letters.
In reviewing the printouts you enclosed, I noticed they included information for a spouse with the TIN 264-25-2169. That number belongs to my ex-wife. We entered a marital settlement agreement November 23, 1999 and were divorced by Final Judgment on January 31, 2000. Please correct your records accordingly.
You stated in your letter that “there is no requirement for any type of verification to be presented to me before, during, or in order to schedule or to hold a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing.” Please refer to IRC Section 6330 (c) (1). It would appear your statement conflicts with the code.
You described my question about IRC 6331 as a “strained interpretation” and then quoted Treasury Regulation §301.6331-1 “If any person liable to pay any tax” underlining “any person”. Should your underlining have continued to include the word liable? Further, I direct your attention to 26 USC 6331 (a) Authority of Secretary. You will find about half way down this section the list of parties to whom the Secretary may ONLY LEVY and those identified in 6331(a) are “Federal Officers, Federal Employees, and Elected Officials of the national government.” I am not such an individual or identified party. Are you saying that those persons clearly identified as to whom the Secretary may ONLY LEVY is a “strained interpretation” of the Code? It is my belief that the pursuit of the threats made against me in the face of enacted law is an act exceeding the scope of your authority, your office, and the law.
With regard to the legitimate issues I will discuss at the CDP Hearing, and in full accord with IRC Sec. 6330, I will raise new issues which challenge the underlying liability as to the existence or amount of alleged tax.
- The IRS must follow the law as written by Congress, and you, an IRS Settlement Officer, must follow the Internal Revenue Manual. I submit that the IRM mandates that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are considered the law of the land and the IRS must adhere to their decisions. In Chrysler Corp. vs. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 295, 296, 301-303 (1979), the court clearly stated that an agency must comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for their actions and regulations to have “the force and effect of law”. In State of Ohio DHS vs. U.S. DHHS, 862 F. 2d 1228, 1237 (1988), that court declared that agency actions taken without “substantive regulations” are “VOID”. THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS” applicable to me, in any of the steps taken by the IRS to date, in the claim of delinquent tax due.
- Several procedural violations have occurred to date. Just one very important item, I have never been given a verification of accuracy of the tax liability, as required in IRM part 5-collection process; Chapter 13; sections 2; #2.3 item 21. Despite numerous requests, no one has been able produce any verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met.
- In the recent case of Schultz II, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a definitive ruling: Independent judicial review is required for all IRS collection enforcement activities. Now the IRS is like landlords, banks and loan companies, who need a court hearing before action. The Debtor is entitled to an independent judge to scrutinize the enforcement activities of all collection agencies. Harsh actions are no longer allowed without the acquiescence or intervention from a judge. A judge is defined as holding a lifetime appointment with no diminishment in salary. Schulz v. IRS, 2nd Circuit, June 2005, Case No. 04-0196-cv.
Additionally, I am entitled to negotiate collection alternatives. Everyone, including me, does their best negotiating in person. At the hearing, I will be prepared to discuss a collection alternative payment, which may include an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise.
As you are aware, I timely, requested a CDP Hearing for the tax periods 2000-2002.
The current statutory laws on CDP Hearings are part of the Restructuring Tax Bill of Rights II. These statutes were passed into law on July 22, 1998. After months of investigation of the IRS by the Senate Finance Committee in 1997, Congress enacted this new legislation to ‘level the playing field’ for all taxpayers.
No provision in 26 USC 6330 provides that appeals officers can dictate conditions under which they will agree to conduct the CDP hearings required by law, or which allows them to dictate to taxpayers the issues they will consider at the hearing prior to the CDP hearing being held.
Your letter of July 20, 2005, appears not to be in sync with the spirit, intention and requirements of Sec. 6330. (I am carefully choosing my words not to offend you).
Therefore, please substitute the enclosed amended CDPH request form for the form you received earlier. At the CDP Hearing I will have a tape recorder, representatives and witnesses,
I believe I have met all the statutory requirements for a face-to-face CDP hearing.
Sincerely,
Warren T.Patriot
Enclosures: Amended CDPH request form
Copies of IRS letters dated July 20, 2005
9. The corrected CDPH request and the cover letter (both of which are attached) effectively removed the first
CDPH request that the IRS considered as frivolous. This substitute or amended CDPH request effectively
removed the first CDPH request from any consideration from the appeals division. Therefore, appeals
should not have discussed or even considered the first request.
10. However the said notice of determination by appeals team manager Denise Traum dealt only with the first
request which had been replaced. Therefore, the notice of determination should be overturned and this case
should be remanded back to the appeals division for a correct and proper hearing.
11. The appeals team manager denied me a face to face hearing based on the contents of the first request and
attachments. However, upon receipt of the second request form, the first request form was replaced and no
longer part of this case. The appeals determination was based on documentation which was no longer
relevant in this case.
12. The corrected CDPH request and the cover letter were sent via Certified Express Mail and receipt by the IRS was acknowledged on July 27, 2005
13. The form of the amended 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.
14. In conclusion, Petitioner requests that the CDPH determination be overturned; the Notice of Determination Letters dated August 9, 2005,
be withdrawn and this case be remanded to the Appeals Division in Tampa, FL 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.
____________________________ September 28, 2005
Warren Patriot, Petitioner pro se
17 Cory Lane
Palm Beach, Florida 33111