UNITED STATES TAX COURT
                                                             Washington, DC 20217

RONALD P. FREEMAN,            )
              Petitioner,     )
                              )     MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    v.                        ) 			
                              )     Docket No. 194XXX
CIR,                          )
              Respondent.     )
______________________________)

Petitioner hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 161 on the Order of the Honorable James S. Halpren, Judge, USTC, dated November 6, 2008 and states the following:

1. The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on September 16, 2008.

2. Respondent was out of town when the Order, dated September 18, 2008, ordering Petitioner to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment was issued and mailed. He received notice of certified mail by the post office, but it was not available for pickup. Petitioner can only assume this is the Order that This Court is referring to in the order issued November 6, 2008. Respondent never received the order; therefore, he was unable to comply with the order.

3. The order, dated November 6, 2008, was received the Petitioner on or about the 26th of November, leaving him less than 10 days to respond to the Order. Even a professional lawyer would have difficulty responding within that amount of time. The Respondent is a pro se litigant. The Motion for Summary Judgment and to Impose a Penalty Under I.R.C. §6673 is well over 50 pages, including the exhibits and Respondent needs more time to properly review and respond to this Motion.

4. Petitioner did show up in court on December 2, 2008, as was stated in his Notice Of Setting Case For Trial in hopes to make this Motion verbally before this Honorable Court. Petitioner’s case was never called.

5. Taxpayer does not owe the taxes in the 90 day letter and clearly stated that in his Petition. For the tax years in question he had unreimbursed business expenses, cost of doing business, deductions, credits and dependents, etc. Taxpayers unreimbursed business expenses were approximately 40% of his gross income as listed on the 90 day letter.

The 10% penalty for gross distribution from his retirement account is unwarranted and unowed.

6. The Judge was incorrect in finding that taxpayer “has relied on anti-tax rhetoric”. Taxpayer’s political opinions and positions are not part of this case. He did not use any “anti-tax tenants” in this case. Further he did not rely on “anti-tax rhetoric” to attack the validity of the taxes in this instant case.

7. He was unable to meet the deadlines in this case because he was working out of town, not because he was ignoring the rules of this court.

Wherefore, Petitioner requests the Order and Decision dated November 6, 2008 be set aside for the above reasons.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that a copy of this foregoing Motion was served on Respondent by US Mail in a postage paid wrapper this 5th day of December, 2008, at Respondent’s address of record.

Date: December 5, 2008

Ronald Freeman
Glendale, AZ 85310