US TAX COURT
                                 WASHINGTON, DC 
 
Gordon J.                     )
       Petitioner             )    DOCKET #672xxx
                              )
   v.                         )    Motion for Leave  
                              )    to File Amended Petition 
Commissioner Internal Revenue )     
       Respondent             )

Petitioner, Gordon J., pro se, pertinent to United States Tax Court Rule 41(a), submits this MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION for the following reasons.

  1. The Petition in this case was filed with the Court on March 17, 2009. The Amendment to the Petition was filed April 17, 2009. The answer to that Amendment was filed on May 1, 2009. Petitioner replied with a request for more definite statement dated May 28, 2009. The second answer to the Amendment to the Petition was filed on June 25, 2009.
  2. On September 8, 2009, Petitioner wrote his Amended Petition, attached. This Amended Petition is essential to an understanding of this case.
  3. Taxpayer is not a lawyer and is untrained in the procedures of Tax Court and was unable to file his Petition with perfection.
  4. The original and Amended Petition was written by the taxpayer, who has no legal or tax education or training. He did the best he could, but his original petition was defective. His first petition and amendment to the petition also was not up to the standards of this Court. An Amended Petition is warranted in this case to correct the manifest and manifold errors in the first petition and amendment to the first petition.
  5. Petitioner had various political operatives assist him in his legal work with the tax court, but they had no legal or tax training or education. The advisers did not understand tax court procedure and this Amended Petition is sorely needed. One major problem with Petitioner’s prior petition was that taxpayer had a tax liability case and a CDPH case confused. The result is a jumble of words which is confusing and convoluted.
  6. The Amended Petition is copied from a website, which only contains professionally prepared pleadings, frequently used in the tax court, which are always acceptable. This pleading satisfies the procedural requirement of the court and also is the foundation of the Plaintiff’s position.
  7. The answer by District Counsel is the response to an erroneous and confusing petition. Therefore, it is also unable to be understood. Petitioner wishes to just start over, follow procedure, and come to some resolution of this case. Petitioner will soon file his Supplement to this Amended Petition with the specifics and particulars pertaining to this actual case.
  8. Respondent will not be prejudiced by the granting of this Motion because there is sufficient time prior to the trial of this case.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Motion be granted and that the Second Amended Petition, which is attached, be filed.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on or about this date, I mailed properly a copy of this Motion for Leave to File Second 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: October 6, 2009
Gordon J., pro se
Santa Barbara, CA 93120