UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington, DC 20217

Marcus Patriot                         )    Docket No. 6636-xx
                     Petitioner,       ) 
                                       ) 
        vs.                            ) 
                                       ) 
                                       ) Motion for Reconsideration 
Commissioner of IRS                    ) 
                    Respondent,        ) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to Rule 161, Petitioner hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated May 7, 2008 by Judge Thomas B. Wells:

1. On March 17th of this year, taxpayer appeared before the session of the tax court at Columbia, South Carolina presided over by the Honorable Thomas B Wells, Judge USTC.

2. Petitioner was contesting notice of deficiency for tax years 2003 and 2004. The court found against petitioner and ordered additions to taxes over $300,000.00.

3. The petitioner had previously stated his positions very well in his prior filings in this case, which are hereby incorporated by reference.

4. Petitioner had properly issued a subpoena to a witness who was present at the time of trial. This witness was there to prove to the court that the petitioner had very little or no taxes due. The subpoena was properly submitted to the court prior to the hearing but petitioner was denied the right to have this witness appear on his behalf. For some reason, unknown to the petitioner or his witness, the court ordered his witness out of the courthouse for no written reason, in fact any reason at all.

5. Petitioner had also properly submitted a “Request for Extension of Time” to the court so that he may undergo a much needed hip re surfacing operation. This request was denied so the surgery had to be rescheduled for August 2008. Due to the court’s denial of the petitioner’s Request for this Extension of Time, the petitioner had to be placed on prescription pain killers to deal with the insurmountable and severe pain he was suffering, and still suffers from today. This pain medication made it impossible for the petitioner to properly prepare for trial or to present a viable defense the day of trial. The court was made fully award that the petitioner was on mind altering prescription pain pills, and that he would not be able to mount “the best defense” possible on two separate occasions. The petitioner asked again for the extension of time, prior to his hearing only to be denied again on both occasions. In pursuit of doing what he could to overcome this HUGE obstacle, the petitioner hired and had with him that day in court a clerical assistant/documentation expert to assist him with the massive amount of documentation needed to prepare a defense. This assistant was to act as a documentation expert to assist petitioner in presenting in tax court his expense documentation to substantiate his cost of business. This assistance was desperately needed due to all the variables mentioned above, but the petitioner was denied his RIGHT to assistance.

6. Petitioner had a business for both of years in question which made little or no profit for those years. He also had a wife that had a job of her own so the decisions was made to build his businesses by directing all of the business profits back into the business for future gains. Thus, for both years, the business expenses were nearly equal to the business income. Under every definition, the petitioner had no or little profit or net income for those years.

7. However taxpayer has no accounting or tax law experience. He did not have his receipts or records in order and was further denied the help of an assistant on his day in court.

8. Unfortunately, petitioner's expert was removed from the courthouse and was not able to assist him during the trial, even though he had been properly served a subpoena, and said subpoena was properly served to the court prior to petitioner's hearing. No record of the reason or the justification for this expulsion, or the denial of this witness to appear was ever made. The court reporters transcript for that day does not show any disturbance whatsoever by the petitioner's clerical assistant, nor his expert witness, both of whom were sitting quietly in the audience.

---This is explained more in the letter from Robert Clarkson to Judge Wells dated March 31, attached.

9. What happened was that a mean and untruthful district counsel at supper the previous night made false and spurious accusations against Mr. Clarkson. The legal assistant was ex parte accused of actions that he did not do or that never happened.

10. Petitioner was denied his rights to testify and to present evidence due to the unjustified acts of Judge Wells. The highly educated District Counsel with easy access to the trial judge abused his position and tarnished the image of the tax court by his false accusations against taxpayer¢s record keeper by whispering into the judge's ear. This was an effective tool against a pro se litigant who has no legal training or experience.

11. In conclusion, District Counsel should be admonished for an ex parte meeting with Judge Wells, for abusing the trial judge's politeness and making serious allegations without any substantiation.

12. Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly on this date a copy to opposing council.

__________________________ Date: May 21, 2008
Marcus Patriot