US TAX COURT

WASHINGTON DC

Robert Freeman                        ) 
                  Petitioner          ) 
       v.                             )     Docket No. 21xx-10
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue      )     
                  Respondent          )     Response to Motion to Show Cause 
                                      )

  1. Petitioner hereby submits his Motion to Show Cause dated December 6, 2011,

  2. Petitioner does not agree with Stipulation Numbers 4, 5, 6 or 7. Respondent failed to provide documentation supporting the income. Petitioner has repeatedly denied the IRS assertions of these numbers and, therefore Tax Court Rule 37(c) does not apply. Petitioner does not have paperwork that substantiates these gross receipts and Respondent has failed to provide documentation as well.

  3. Petitioner is unable to prove a negative and according to Scar v. CIR, 814 F.2d 1363, Portillo v. CIR, 932 F.2d 1128, Senter v. CIR, T.C. Memo 1995-311 and Weimerskirch v. CIR, 596 F.2d 358 the IRS bears the burden of proving Petitioner had the stated income. “Presumption of correctness of government's tax deficiency assessment does not apply when government's assessment falls within narrow but important category of naked assessment without any foundation; court need not give effect to presumption of correctness in case involving unreported income if tax commissioner cannot present some predicate evidence supporting its determination...” Portillo v. CIR, 932 F.2d 1129 (5th CIR. 1991). “The need for tax collection does not serve to excuse the government, however, from providing some factual foundation for its assessments.” Portillo v. CIR, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th CIR. 1991).

  4. If the IRS intends to use copies of W-2's or 1099's or contracts or invoices, etc., then they must have a witness from the originating source (company/corporation) who can testify to the authenticity of each document and the petitioner can cross-examine.

  5. Additionally, Petitioner objects to Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause on the proposed stipulations because Respondent did not first contact Petitioner informally to discuss these stipulations. Stipulations are to be jointly agreed upon and signed by both parties before submission to the court. Petitioner knows very well that the Rules of Discovery intend for parties to attempt to reach an agreement on stipulations before utilizing the court’s procedures. Respondent’s Motion titled Respondent’s Objection to Petitioners’ Request for Admissions dated August 27, 2010, in response to Petitioner’s initial discovery proves this point very well.

  6. Respondent’s Exhibit B entitled “Source and Location Evidence supporting Exhibit A” does not show a “source” or “evidence”. This document merely states “Petitioner should stipulate to this fact…”. There are no documents relating to the sources of income to substantiate the IRS’ alleged figures.

  7. In Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause Respondent states “Petitioner has failed to make contact with Respondent regarding the Proposed Stipulation of Facts and has failed to stipulate to any facts or documents involved in this case.” Petitioner objects to this paragraph on the grounds that Respondent did not send Petitioner the proposed stipulations until November 8, 2011. Petitioner may have overlooked what was happening during the holiday season. Petitioner reminds Respondent that he had to send several requests for documents and Admissions last year that Respondent failed to respond to in a timely manner. Additionally, Petitioner sent stipulations November 7, 2011 in which Respondent failed to respond to.

  8. Tax Payer is a pro se litigant, not an attorney who is educated in Tax Law and it can be understood why he possibly missed a deadline, however, what excuse can a high-priced tax attorney with overwhelming resources from the government provide?

  9. In Respondent’s Paragraph No. 6 Respondent says that he “Informed Petitioner that his proposed facts could not be stipulated to because Petitioner has failed to provide any substantiating documents or information.”

What documentation or information has the IRS provided? All Petitioner has from the IRS are names of companies with some astronomical dollar amounts. There are no witnesses or affidavits that Respondent has provided to substantiate these integers.

  1. Respondent failed to contact Petitioner stating his intention to file this Motion to Show Cause; so of course, he would say that “Petitioners views as to the granting of this Motion are unknown.” Petitioner objects to the granting of Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause.

Wherefore, Petitioner requests that Respondents Motion to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established be denied. 

____________________________________                Date:  ___________________
Robert Freeman, pro se 
123 Main St.
Freedom, SC 12345

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent via U.S. postage paid wrapper a copy of this Response to Motion to Show Cause to opposing counsel at (address below):

James R. Bamberg
Area Counsel
400 West Bay Street
Room 240, Stop C
Jacksonville, FL 32202

____________________________________                Date:  _________________________
Robert Freeman, pro se 
123 Main St.
Freedom, SC 12345