US TAX COURT 
                                                                   WASHINGTON DC
                                                                   
 
Scott H.                           )							
           Petitioner              )           DOCKET #83xxx
                                   )
     v.                            )           Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 
                                   )           (Tax Year 2001)
Commissioner Internal Revenue      )
            Respondent.            )
            

Petitioner, Scott H., hereby files his opposition to the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 8, 2008, based upon the following reasons:

1. Petitioner filed a valid and acceptable petition to the tax court in this case on August 1, 2006 and his Supplement to Petition/Amended Petition on April 10, 2006 to personalize his generic petition. The Petition and the Supplement meet all the requirements of the law and include no arguments classified by the IRS/Tax Court as frivolous.

District Counsel’s accusation of frivolous or groundless issues are false. For making false accusations against a pro se litigant, the Commissioner should be penalized under IRC §6673.

2. Petitioner has neither legal training nor experience in tax matters. His original CDPH Request may have included positions classified by the IRS as frivolous. However these were withdrawn and substitute positions filed in his recall letter dated August 10, 2005. He also responded to the appeals department on November 22, 2005 [exhibit H to CIR Motion for Summary Judgment], December 14, 2005 [exhibit J], January 18, 2006 [exhibit L] plus other filings whereby he asserted acceptable positions which are not classified as frivolous.

3. Taxpayer is in full compliance with the CDPH laws and regulations. Therefore he is entitled to an in-person conference. However ASO Munson demanded in her letters that taxpayer comply with prerequisites that she dreamed up. However these hoops to jump through are not required by law or regulation.

Ms. Munson denied taxpayer’s request for a face-to-face conference even though taxpayer had complied with her instructions to request issues that are relevant and not frivolous.

4. The law is well settled that if Petitioner has complied with the requirements of the Congress, he is entitled to a face-to-face conference. The Tax Court has uniformly held that a taxpayer is entitled to a face to face hearing upon request. See MARETT v. COMMISSIONER, Docket No. 04048-06L, Dated 07/07/2006, and SHELL v. COMMISSIONER, Docket No. 20188-05L, Dated 05/31/2006. Therefore, taxpayer is entitled to a remand to the appeals division.

5. On February 7, 2006 Ms. Munson issued her Notice of Determination which was based upon the original CDPH request which had been withdrawn and no longer part of this case. The substitute CDPH request was perfectly acceptable and should not have been ignored. Therefore the Notice of Determination is completely invalid and should be overturned by this court.

6. District Counsel claims in paragraph 22 that Petitioner’s refusal to file some IRS forms makes him ineligible for a CDP Hearing. This is not true. Taxpayer can file the required forms at the hearing itself and prior filing is not required.

7. The law requires the settlement officer to present proof that taxpayer received the Notice of Deficiency plus the Notice and Demand Letter. The settlement officer presented no such proof even though she has had ample time to do so.

8. Taxpayer had a genuine desire to pursue collection alternatives to the proposed levy. He was prepared to have all the required forms completed and in good order prior to the hearing or at the hearing itself. The face-to-face conference is a mandatory requirement of §6330. Without a hearing, taxpayer was not given an opportunity to request and present his paperwork for collection alternatives, etc. Telephone conferences are, as is well known, not subject to recording. Petitioner was prejudiced by Respondent’s refusal to hear his legitimate arguments in person.

9. The appeals office abused her discretion and therefore Respondent is not entitled to Summary Judgment.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this motion for summary judgment be denied based on the above grounds.

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:______________________