Christopher L. Patriot       )     Docket No. 08-ALJ-17-0118-xx
      Petitioner,            )
 Vs.                         )      Motion for Rehearing
SC Department of Revenue     )
      Respondent.            )								

Petitioner above named hereby moves this court for Reconsideration of its Final Order and Decision dated September 08, 2008.

1. In said order, this court handed down its order granting DOR everything it wanted.
Therefore, Petitioner files his motion for new trial.

2. Whether Petitioner filed tax returns for tax years other than the year in question should have no bearing on the this case. 
Respondent produced this information to paint a negative caricature of Petitioner. These
other tax years mentioned are not being litigated and do not affect the instant case.
However, if DOR would like to bring them up, we can discuss the lack of
procedure followed by DOR in placing a levy on me for tax year 2002.
3. Petitioner cannot be held liable for the lack of communication between the State DOR of NC and the State DOR of SC. If Petitioner’s
employer erroneously sent his withholding to the state of NC, then the state of SC
should hold the Department of Revenue for NC responsible for that money and ask
them to return it. Petitioner had no control over where his withholding money was sent.
4. The state legislature authorizes the DOR to collect the taxes actually owed. Petitioner had withholding and is supporting four
dependents. He has charitable contributions, business expenses etc. Clearly Petitioner
did not owe any taxes. Therefore, DOR is attempting to assess and collect taxes which are clearly not owed.
5. Petitioner was very cooperative with DOR and offered to meet with him several times. DOR was uncooperative with taxpayer and

refused to settle this out of court. Respondent should be fined for taking up the
court’s valuable time, when this matter could have been previously settled.
6. During said trial, Petitioner provided credible evidence by cross examining the State’s witness. Said witness has never worked
for Petitioner’s employers, has never seen a pay stub or W-2 form issued by Petitioner’s
employer and admitted under oath that IRS printouts have been known to be incorrect.
If the burden of proof for Respondent is met solely by IRS printouts, where is the due process guaranteed to Petitioner under the
State and Federal Constitution? IRS printouts have been proven in many cases to be
grossly inaccurate.
7. This court relies upon NSK Ltd. v. US., 919 F. Supp. 442 (1996). Said case involved a business and not an individual. Petitioner
is not engaged in commerce as cited case deals with, nor does instant case have anything
to do with “federal antidumping laws.”
Further cited case deals with “recalcitrant parties who refused to cooperate.” This is not so in instant case as Petitioner was
willing to meet with Mr. Urban. It was Mr. Urban who refused to cooperate.
8. This order claims that IRS printouts are not hearsay. However, state law provides otherwise: The department is required to use
the best information.
9. The best information is the 1099’s submitted by the product providers. The employers in this state spend millions of dollars
complying and mailing to DOR the wage statements of the employees. DOR should use these
rather than the grossly unreliable figures from the IRS.
10. IRS transcripts are notorious for being incorrect. The data entry staff at the IRS service centers is well known to be lazy,
imaginative, and grossly inaccurate. DOR should have used the direct information from the
companies that issued the 1099’s.
11. The documentation this court allowed DOR to submit at trial violates the hearsay rule. This court clearly favors DOR and has made
no effort to give taxpayer a fair chance.
12. Since records to substantiate his business expenses and deductions are lost Taxpayer relies on the Cohen case: The Cohen v. CIR case shows that in tax disputes, the taxpayer can use reasonable figures, instead of figures conjured by the tax
collectors that cannot be correct. The taxpayer can also reconstruct lost paperwork to
substantiate his deductions and business expenses.
Further, the taxpayer can claim a percentage of business expenses and profit for a business enterprise, even if he has no records to
substantiate business expenses. For example, a plumbing subcontractor could claim
as expenses 60% of gross receipts from the form 1099s that the IRS received from the contractors.
The 9th Circuit Court ruled in Cohen v. CIR, 266 F 2d 5(1959): “ We think our only proper course is to approach the problem indirectly by analysis of the record in the light of the principles established
in Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). Our objective will be, after resolving any reasonable doubts against petitioner, to reconstruct his
gross income as betting commissioner at a figure which in our judgment it would be unlikely to exceed in fact.”
The purpose of the DOR is to collect taxes, not to browbeat hard working citizens who are unable to produce records. Taxpayer in this
case was unable to produce all the records that DOR seeks. However, everyone knows
that taxpayer did incur large expenses for business.
The government should figure out what the law says he owes--not a tax imposed by lack of ability to produce records by a taxpayer working
hard to make a living.
13. Again the court cites a case involving a business M. Lowenstein and Sons, Inc v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 227 S.C. 561, 290 S.E3d
816 (1982) (“Taxpayers seeking tax deductions must bring themselves squarely
with the statues authorizing such deduction and any doubt must be resolved against the taxpayer.)
Taxpayer did the best he could on books and records by producing an affidavit. To bring all his books and records to court would be time
consuming for the Court, especially since Mr. Urban refused to meet with me ahead
of time to come to an agreement.
14. The tax law is so complex and confusing that nobody knows what it says. Petitioner pro se has done his best to adhere to this court’s
rules and to respect the judicial system in effect. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled some leeway and reduction in penalties.
15. DOR is using the overwhelming resources of the taxpayers to bully and overwhelm an average businessman. The high paid attorneys for the
department used their knowledge of the complex tax laws and procedures against a
taxpayer without a lawyer or resources to hire a lawyer.
Shamefully, this court allowed the tax collectors to take advantage of a loyal citizen of this state.
Thousands of taxpayers in our wonderful state have the same problem: no funds to hire a tax lawyers/CPA. The bullies at DOR know this very
well. They are using their financial advantage to the maximum benefit.
The tax victims of SC are therefore paying large amounts of non-owed taxes. Unjust taxes are assessed and collected because the working
people do not have the economic resources and knowledge to fight back. Without the representation, the taxpayer is in sense being tried in the
Star Chamber.
15. Taxpayer did not raise any political arguments or challenge the definition of “income” This portion of the Judge’s decision was not
necessary. DOR brought up this frivolous position and they should be fined for such.
16. This administrative court has a duty to protect the people from the rapturous, insensitive, bureaucracy. Because the prey is unable to
contest audits, DOR is knowingly and purposely collecting taxes that they know are not owed.
17. The State legislature did not authorize the tax collectors to collect taxes that are un-owed. The tax collectors, by law must determine
the tax liability, not determine how much money the little people have to fight the audit. Everybody knows when a case
is assigned to an agent, the first thing he does is analyzes the file to see whether his subject has the ability to protect
his interest. Then the agent acts accordingly. Would a lawyer or a relative of a politician ever be treated as this bureaucracy has terrorized this honest,
hard-workingman and loyal citizen of this magnificent state?
18. In conclusion, this court should withdraw its order and re-open its case so that the working man can receive credit for business costs,
depreciation, etc and the true and correct tax be figured.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel. ____________________ Date: September 19, 2008 Chris L. Patriot