UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA      
                                                                        FT. MYERS DIVISION

WTB,                           )
           Petitioner,         )
   v.                          )     Case No. 2:06-mc-00xxx
                               )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,      )
           Respondent.         )

                                                                            ANSWER
                                                                            

The United States, by and through the undersigned counsel, admits, denies, and alleges in response to the numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint (styled Supplement to Petition to Overturn Invalid IRS Determination Collection Due Process Determination Issued Pursuant to 26 USC 6330, Dkt 2 ) as follows:

1. Admits the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the amended complaint; lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 1.

2. Denies.

3. Admits the first sentence of paragraph 3; denies the remainder of paragraph 3; affirmatively alleges that copying or paraphrasing portions of Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code does not constitute raising relevant issues.

4. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 4.

5. The first sentence of paragraph 5 is a statement of law, not fact, and as such does not require a response; lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 5; alleges that the IRS official who conducted or attempted to conduct the collection due process hearing with the petitioner was authorized to do so.

6. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 6.

7. Admits that the petitioner’s initial request for a collection due process hearing was timely; denies that what the petitioner elsewhere identifies as his “amended” collection due process hearing request was timely.

8. Denies that the statements set forth in the “amended” request for a CDPH hearing constituted positions of the petitioner, but alleges rather that they are mere paraphrasing of portions of Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code; denies that the petitioner took positions acceptable to the IRS; lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 8.

9. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 9.

10. Denies.

11. Denies.

12. Admits that the petitioner was denied a face-to-face hearing; denies the remainder of paragraph 12.

13. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 13.

14. Denies; alleges that the “amended request for a collection due process hearing merely paraphrases portions of Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code.

15. Admits the petitioner seeks the relief set forth in paragraph 15; denies he is entitled to it.

WHEREFORE, the this Court should enter judgment affirming the notice of determination, and granting such other and further relief to the United States as is proper.

PAUL I. PEREZ
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Philip Doyle
Philip Doyle
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 14198
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-9673
Facsimile: (202) 514-9868
philip.a.doyle@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing Answer has this 8th day of June, 2006, been made by depositing a copy thereof, first-class postage prepaid, in the United States mail addressed to the following:

WTB
Cape Coral, Florida 33904
/s/ Philip Doyle
Trial Attorney, Tax Division