US TAX COURT 
                                             WASHINGTON DC 
Scott W.                       ) 
               Petitioner      )          DOCKET #________ 
  V.                           ) 
Commissioner Internal Revenue  )       Supplement To 
                               )       Petition for Re-Determination of 
                               )       Notice of Determination on CDPH) 

Petitioner above named hereby files his Supplement to Petition for Re-Determination of Notice of Determination on CDPH that was dated the same as this or dated___________________.

1. On July 14 2005, I filed my original Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing on request Form 12153.

2. On August 10, 2005, I sent the IRS my Amended Request for a CDP Hearing, which is a substitute for the original request. I also sent on that day a cover letter that stated I wanted the original request to be amended or withdrawn.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.

3. However, the Notice of Determination dated Feb 7, 2006 of the IRS appeals office dealt only with the original CDPH Request, which had been replaced and is not part of this case. The amended CDPH Request is the only request that is part of this action, even though it was ignored by appeals.

4. Under the SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES, Appeals ruled that I claimed not to be “an officer of the United States” and to be a “non taxpayer”. This is not true. These statements may have been in the original CDPH Request, which was withdrawn, but it is not mentioned in my amended CDPH Request that was to be considered by Appeals. I presented several relevant issues.

5. Under Issues raised by the Taxpayer, Appeals again falsely stated my position. The positions they claim were withdrawn and no longer exist. The issues raised by Taxpayer are listed in my Amended CDPH Request (copy attached). This Amended Request did not have any political or Constitutional issues or anything that the IRS has classified as “frivolous.” I deny that this is a frivolous claim.

6. I have relevant matters to discuss at the face-to-face conference including collections alternatives and the matters mentioned in my Amended Request. Collection alternatives can be discussed at the hearing 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 my Petition, which is attached or was filed separately earlier.

7. The requirements of various applicable law or administrative procedures pertaining to the IRS, have not been met.

8. In conclusion, this supplement explains my position and I request that the Court remand this case to Appeals Office and order the IRS to schedule a face-to-face hearing.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify on this date that a copy this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.

____________________________________                        Date:_______________________________ 
c/o Scott W.
Rock Hill, SC 28803