UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington, D.C. 20217
Ted Patriot, )
Petitioner ) Docket #13000-00
v. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
Pursuant to Rule 161 of the Rules for Tax Court, Petitioner Ted Patriot, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and Decision of Judge Michael B. Thornton dated March 7, 2007, based on the following reasons:
1. Petitioner timely filed his request for a due process hearing which the IRS claims included arguments classified by the IRS as groundless and frivolous.
2. Petitioner filed a request for CDPH on form #12153 on September 7, 2004 which requested a CDPH in-person, based on grounds passed by Congress, but which may have been poorly worded. Petitioner eventhough inarticulate did in fact request a copy of his Notice and Demand letter and other necessary forms.
3. The law is clear that the Appeals Division upon request must furnish proof that Petitioner received his Statutory Notice of Deficiency (SNoD) as well as his Notice and Demand (NaD) letter. By requesting these forms, Petitioner was requesting proof they were sent and he in fact received these forms.
4. Petitioner did not receive SNoD and NaD. Since he did not receive these notices, he is entitled to use his CDPH procedures to determine his tax liabilities.
5. IRC 6320- IRC6330 lists the grounds for a CDPH hearing which include procedure irregularities or challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, liability issues in the absence of SnoD, etc.
6. Petitioner’s CDPH requests (even though worded differently than normal) did in fact raise issues for the hearing as authorized by statute.
7. Petitioner has a high school educated with no formal legal training. Petitioner did his best but made many mistakes. However, in his request form, he did list one ground for which he is entitled to a face-to-face hearing.
8. Petitioner clearly requested a face-to-face hearing, which is undisputed.
9. In the case of Marett v CIR Docket No. 4048-061 dated July 7, 2006 the Special Trial Judge ruled that the Petitioner is entitled to a face-to-face hearing if he made a CDPH request which listed as a purpose any one of the issues mentioned in the Statute. Even though incorrectly worded, Petitioner did in fact meet this criteria.
Therefore he is entitled to his face-to-face hearing as requested. Consequently, this case should be reopened and Petitioner be allowed to reword his previous letters to IRS and pleadings to this Court.
10. Petitioner now has competent advisor. Petitioner withdraws any and all letters, motions, requests, etc sent to either the IRS or this Court that raised any Constitutional, political or religious issues. Petitioner recalls and withdraws all letters or pleadings that contained or listed any positions which the IRS has classified as “frivolous and groundless”.
11. Petitioner has limited education and is not familiar with procedures of the tax service or tax court. I made a great effort to obey the law and do what’s right. However I found the tax code to complicated for me.
Therefore, I sought advise on filling out my CDPH request form correctly. I now realize that these positions are highly unpopular with the tax service and the Tax Court.
12. I request permission to file a new CDPH request and I promise I will meet all requirements of the law if given another chance. I will follow the rules of the procedures of the tax people and Tax Court.
13. Petitioner also requests this Motion allowed to be entered if not filed timely, because his employment requires him to travel away from home and does not have access to the notice which he needs to address his issues during the week and he did not receive the Order until March 10, 2007.
15. 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: March 17, 2007
1776 Patriot Way