US TAX COURT
WASHINGTON DC
Scott H. )
Petitioner ) DOCKET #83xxx
)
v. ) Motion for Penalties
) Under I.R.C. §6673
Commissioner Internal Revenue )
Respondent. )
The Petitioner moves, pursuant to Tax Court Rule 50, that the court impose a penalty, in an appropriate amount, pursuant I.R.C. §6673, because Respondent has filed false and malicious statements, illegally threatened and intimidated taxpayer plus harassment letters and motions.
1. In his Motion for Summary Judgment, declaration of counsel, motion for penalty, etc., all dated January 8, 2008, included false statements, mainly that “Petitioner’s position in the present case is frivolous or groundless.”
2. District Counsel failed to list any single statement whatsoever in any way by tax victim that consists of arguments prescribed by the IRS list of frivolous positions in program 2007-30 part II Administrative Procedure and Positions under IRC §6702(c). The tax service has published a list of arguments which it considers illegal. District Counsel is supposed to examine issues raised by taxpayer and compare them to this list of issues clearly Constitutional, religious, political, or not authorized by the procedures of the IRS/Tax Court.
Then he notifies the taxpayer that his positions are classified as frivolous and groundless. Or, DC can bring this to the court. But somewhere, somehow, opposing counsel must put into writing the words/arguments/paragraphs which are classified as frivolous or groundless under the law. District Counsel has not specifically outlined any word or sentence of taxpayer which meets the standard, criteria or definition of frivolous or groundless.
3. District Counsel has failed to do so because none exist. Petitioner does not deny that frivolous and groundless positions are outlawed or that penalties should be imposed for those who violate the law. Petitioner states that no frivolous or groundless argument was used by him and that DC is unable to produce any.
4. District Counsel has no grounds whatsoever to impose a penalty against Petitioner. The facts just do not exist. No evidence was presented, just bald allegations. Therefore Respondent should be sanctioned to the fullest extent of the law.
5. District Counsel brought his motion to terrorize a pro se litigant. High paid counsel for Respondent knew that Petitioner has no legal experience, has never been to tax court and is hopelessly lost. The purpose of CIR tax lawyer was to intimidate, frighten and harass a pro se litigant with no legal experience.
6. Well educated tax lawyer for the powerful agency failed to specifically list any asserted frivolous argument by taxpayer. Therefore, this lack of evidence is in turn evidence of harassment. The District Counsel's office should be encouraged by this court to stop harassing pro se litigants . Elementary legal pleadings include and refer to evidence if such exist.
Years ago taxpayer may have filed various documents later classified as frivolous demands and arguments. These are listed by opposing counsel and have nothing to do with this case. When corresponding with his government, Petitioner has a right under the First Amendment to state his political beliefs. None of these administrative letters have anything to do with this case.
Respondent’s attorney makes references to taxpayer’s not filing certain IRS documents This was years ago and is not material or relevant to the case at hand. This was added to Respondent’s motion for penalties against petitioner. This was an evil threat against an American Citizen who has no familiarity with the court system.
The IRC is complex and confusing, nobody knows what it means and all taxpayers make mistakes dealing with this horrendous system.
7. Further District Counsel continues to falsely assert that Petitioner “raised no non-frivolous challenges….” This is another false statement. Petitioner’s arguments in this case were lifted right out of the Congressional enactment and from dozens of other tax court cases. Petitioner’s challenges to the levy came off websites and have been used in hundreds of cases before the tax court. Taxpayer’s arguments are perfectly acceptable to the IRS and tax court and have been accepted in hundreds of cases in the past.
8. District Counsel has sent taxpayer threatening letters with false accusations, a motion for summary judgment that was incorrect and fraudulent in its entirety, a declaration of Respondent’s counsel which could be considered perjury and a motion for penalties date, January 8, 2008.
However his declaration failed to include a very important document. This exclusion of a vital document is tantamount to fraud on the court. The Declaration of J Craig Young, dated January 7, 2008, includes all the documents in this case except the most important one.
9. On August 10, 2005, Taxpayer sent the IRS his Amended Request for a CDP Hearing, which is a substitute for the original request. He also sent on that day a cover letter that stated he wanted the original request to be amended or withdrawn. Therefore the original CDPH Request is a nullity, does not exist and is not part of this action.
Young’s refusal to inform the court of this vital document could not be an accident. This document completely destroys Young’s motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Penalties. He omitted the Recall Letter and the attached substitute CDPH Request form 12153 from his list of exhibits. This document proves taxpayer is in full compliance with the statute, regulations and policies. The recall letter exposes all of Young’s arguments as completely and totally false. Therefore with malice, prejudice and meanness, Young did not bring to the Court vital and necessary information.
He needs encouragement from this Court to behave better, to be polite and to stop intimidation of hapless pro se litigants without resources to hire expensive tax professionals.
9. Petitioner responded to the threat and harassment letters from District Counsel. J.C. Young was clearly informed that his threats and harassment letters were unacceptable. He was warned that Petitioner would “bring your wrongful actions to the attention of the proper authorities.”
10. Petitioner has not instituted or maintained this case to delay tax collection. However the IRS, in particular J Craig Young has delayed and stalled this case to an unusual extent. Young has instituted frivolous motions including the Motion for Penalties to stall and delay this matter. Petitioner’s conciliatory steps were rebuffed with meanness. Petitioner made numerous efforts for out of court settlements to resolve this matter, but the IRS consistently refused.
11. District Counsel has delayed this case many times in order to harass and intimidate an uneducated pro se litigant. Yet he accuses taxvictim of wrongful acts that he does.
12. Petitioner incorporates by reference his Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 28, 2008, and his Supplement to Petition dated February 25, 2007. Said opposition handily refutes tax lawyer Young’s bald face accusations against loyal citizen Petitioner. Taxpayer is fully in compliance with all requirements for a CDP Hearing, but Appeals denied it. J. Craig Young has a long history of harassing taxpayers without legal representation.
13. In conclusion, the District Counsel's office must be held to the same or higher standards as taxpayers with limited resources. This court has laid or found penalties on pro se litigants in the thousands. To show fairness to the world, penalties need to be occasionally applied to the Commissioner's attorneys. J. Craig Young is a poster child for the reputation of perfidious tax agents.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.
________________________
Scott H.
Ashville, NC 28803-10116
Date:______________________