UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington, D.C. 20217
James Patriot, )
)
Petitioner ) Docket No. 19512-000
v. ) Motion for Reconsideration
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to Rule 161 of the Rules for Tax Court, Petitioner James Patriot , hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and Decision of Judge Thomas B. Wells dated February 9, 2006, based on the following reasons:
- Petitioner timely filed his request for a due process hearing which included arguments classified by the IRS as political and frivolous.
- On __________ Petitioner retracted those arguments and filed new arguments which are acceptable to the IRS. Appeals Officer Sawyer instructed Petitioner “if Petitioner wanted an in-person conference, to submit correspondence within ten days regarding nonfrivolous, relevant facts, law, argument or evidence challenging the proposed levy.” From oral findings dated January 9, pg. 5.
- Petitioner complied with the instructions of the appeal officer. Petitioner also submitted collection alternatives. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an in-person conference.
- On October 17, 2003 Sawyer mailed Petitioner a Notice of Determination. Petitioner timely petitioned the tax court.
- The court’s Order of February 9, 2006 and the court’s Oral Findings from the hearing on January 9, 2006 totally ignored Petitioner’s new position and the fact that he withdrew his first argument which is disfavored by the IRS. Petitioner’s new argument followed the existing rules of this court and therefore, Petitioner is entitled a hearing based on the new argument. The court ruled exclusively on Petitioner’s original argument which had been withdrawn and was not part of this case, and ignored the new argument.
- “Respondent warned Petitioner that if he continued to assert frivolous arguments, Respondent would request that the Court impose a penalty under 6673.” From oral findings of January 9, pg. 10. Petitioner complied with this instruction and withdrew his arguments that are classified as frivolous and substituted new positions which have never been considered frivolous. Yet the Court imposed a frivolous penalty of $3,000.
- Petitioner relied upon the instructions of Respondent which clearly stated that no penalty would be imposed if he substituted his first argument for a new, acceptable argument. Petitioner did as he was instructed and still was fined $3,000.
- Petitioner was a pro-se litigant at the hearing as were all the other petitioners that day. Skilled lawyers represented the IRS and all the litigants were preceding pro se. However, many of the petitioners had clerical assistance sitting at the table with them.
- Petitioner had sitting with him at his table a clerical assistant. However, the Court ordered his helper to leave, which left Petitioner helpless and without the ability to find his papers to read to the court. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to remind the Court that a new argument had been filed and that the Court was dealing with his earlier position which had been withdrawn.
- Therefore, Petitioner was denied a meaningful hearing and his day of court. Under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Petitioner is entitled to an adequate hearing which was denied. Consequently the decision of the Court should be withdrawn and a new hearing scheduled.
11. In conclusion, Petitioner requests that the order in this case be reconsidered for the reasons mentioned above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date I mailed properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
_____________________________ Dated: _______________________
James Patriot
1776 Patriot Way
Waterloo, USA