US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC
Gordon J. )
Petitioner ) DOCKET #672xxx
)
v. ) Supplement to Second
) Amended Petition
Commissioner Internal Revenue )
Respondent )
Petitioner above named hereby files his Supplement to Second Amended Petition, which is dated September 8, 2009.
1. Petitioner filed on time his original Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. On August 14, 2009, Petitioner submitted his Substitute and Recall letter, along with his revised request Form 12153 for levy under IRC 6330. Petitioner clearly requested a face-to-face hearing and notified the Service of his intentions to make an audio recording of the hearing. Issues to be answered in the face to face hearing could not be answered by correspondence.
2. Petitioner requested a CDPH to discuss collection alternatives, procedural irregularities, etc. Petitioner’s revised request form recited the purposes listed by Congress and not one item on the tax collector’s “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 the IRS has with any citizens.
3. The Commissioner has not submitted proof that Petitioner received the Statutory Notice of Deficiency plus the Notice and Demand letter as required by IRC 6303.
4. Petitioner did not file in this case any frivolous or groundless arguments in his substitute CDPH request. If appeals has any frivolous arguments raised by Petitioner, on his revised CDPH form, they should be required to submit them in court.
5. Petitioner clearly and definitely stated in his substitute CDPH request that he wanted a face-to-face hearing. The appeals officer has not allow one. Therefore, this case should be remanded to Appeals and an in-person conference scheduled.
6. The Commissioner did not send to Petitioner his Summary of Assessment form 4340, the transcripts, etc., even though clearly requested by Petitioner. Petitioner clearly and definitely requested those necessary forms and is unable to proceed without that information. Petitioner requests that this court order the Commissioner to produce the necessary documents which were created prior to the date when the CDPH was finalized by the IRS.
7. Petitioner met the requirement of 6330 in petitioning for the hearing. Petitioner clearly stated in his substitute CDPH his issues. Congress sets forth the condition for CDPH, not the IRS (See Petition). Petitioner has relevant matters to discuss at the face-to-face conference including the relevant and non-frivolous matters mentioned in his pleadings. Collection alternatives can be discussed 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 his Petition.
8. The requirements of various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining to the IRS have not been met.
9. Petitioner withdraws his prior filings and pleadings in this case, except his Second Amended Petition and Recall and Substitute Letter. Petitioner has no education and training in the law, taxes, nor procedure before the IRS and the Tax Court. He is a simple working man who has tried to do the best he can. Since he
10. In conclusion, this Supplement explains Petitioner’s position, and he requests that the CDPH Notice of Determination, be overturned and withdrawn, and the Court remand this case to Appeals Office and order the IRS to schedule a proper face-to-face hearing.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy of this Amended Petition to the Respondent at Chief Counsel’s office at 950 Hampshire Road, East Pavilion, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91361-2819 as well as the Court Clerk at 400 Second St, NW, Washington, DC.
___________________ Date: September 8, 2009 Gordon J., pro se Santa Barbara, CA 93120