Robert Clarkson only suggests options and explains possible consequences. You must make your own decisions. The PN does not control or manage any case. As a pro se litigant, you must do that yourself.

Long time patriot, Henry, on the left. Evil lawyer for the IRS on the right. Tax Court Administrative Law Judge in background.

Preliminary Letter dated September 27, 2004.

I want to petition the tax court for the tax years 1995-2005. Please send me the necessary forms and instructions. My SSN # is 123-45-7890

I do not owe the deficiency. The IRS calculations are grossly incorrect.

Yours,

Michael Mountain
1776 Freedom Way
Liberty, SC 29610

United States Tax Court

 Mr. Liberty                        )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No. 12345-67
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )
               Respondent.          )
                                    )

Request for Modification of Petition
Request for a Full Trial

1. Petitioner Mr. Liberty Grage hereby requests that the Tax Court allows him to modify his original petition filed on March, 31 2004 to seek a full trial instead of a small case trialPetitioner made a good faith effort to comply with the Court's instruction to attempt to negotiate a settlement of this matter. Petitioner contacted Charles Brashear, IRS Appeals Officer in the Glendale California office on or about 9/25/04. Mr. Brashear stated that he would not even talk to the Petitioner unless he signed a 1040 Form in advance. This is an arbitrary and unreasonable position that deprives the Petitioner of both his due process and discovery rights. There is no basis in law for this unreasonable demand. Petitioner is open to considering signing a 1040 Form if he can insist that the form is accurately filled out and not merely based upon limited and inaccurate information contained in the IRS Substitute for Return. It is, in fact the IRS Substitute for Return itself and the process by which it was created, that are at legal issue here. Therefore the Petitioner is unwilling to be bludgeoned into signing a 1040 Form that covertly abrogated the possibility of any of the legal and procedural questions pertaining to that legal process from being heard and ruled upon by an impartial court of competent jurisdiction.Petitioner received a letter from the IRS Counsel. The letter contained 1099 information only. It had no other documents showing how said 1099 information was utilized to complete the Substitute for Return and compute an alleged tax owed.
2. Petitioner has previously requested internal documents that are necessary to generate a Substitute for Return. His requests for these documents have been ignored, as have virtually all of Petitioner's multiple attempts to communicate responsibly and in good faith to resolve this matter with the IRS prior to the filing of the petition now before the Tax Court.

Petitioner therefore prays that the Tax Court allow him to modify his original petition, to have a full trial instead of a small case trial.

Thank You.

Docket No. 5910-04

Certificate of Service

I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing council.

Jordan S. Musen, Attorney for Respondent.
Associate Area Counsel
Tax Court Bar No. MJ1957
950 Hampshire Road.
East Pavilion
Thousand Oaks, Ca. 91361-2819
805-371-6702 * 735

____________________ _________________________

Date: September 28, 2004. Mr. Liberty, Petitioner
5307 Katherine St.
Simi Valley, Ca. 93063
805-583-3909

United States Tax Court

 John Ray Adams                     )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No. 6582
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )
               Respondent.          )
                                    )

Motion for Extension of Time

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 25(c) Petitioner Adams above hereby moves this court for an extension of time based upon the following grounds:

1). District Counsel has not notified me of pre-trial order or pre-trial conference or an opportunity to reach settlement in this case. Furthermore, District Counsel has not initiated pre-trial discovery, which was to completed 45 days before trial, pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 70(a)(2). District Counsel has not provided timely stipulations to Petitioner Adams, stipulations were received by Petitioner Adams on Saturday January 8, 2005. Stipulations were not received in time for an adequate response

2). This case is ready for settlement. District Counsel has not bothered to respond to my frequent requests for an out of court settlement.

3). Petitioner Adams needs more time to secure records, prepare for trial and fill out stipulations.

4). Petitioner Adams is a pro se litigant, unschooled in law and unfamiliar with procedures and needs more time to prepare for trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that pro se litigants are not held to the same procedural standards as highly trained attorneys.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this date, I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

 _____________________________            January 12, 2005
             John Ray Adams

United States Tax Court

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Washington, DC

Henry Patriot                     )������
   Petitioner                     )�Docket� NO. 1104-06, 20806-09���
                                  )
  vs.                             )   
                                  ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                  )
Commissioner of Internal Revenue  )
     Respondent     ��������������������

Notice is hereby given that Petitioner above-named hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from the order of The Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge, U.S. Tax Court dated, July 24, 2006, which decided deficiencies in Petitioner�s federal income tax and awarded penalties under section 6673(a) against Petitioner.

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

      ______________________________������������������������ Date: ________________________
      Henry Patriot, Petitioner, Pro Se
      Greenville, SC 29615

Explanation of McKee Case

From Lindsey Springer:

On December 4, 2006, the 9th Circuit reversed the United States Tax Court on whether litigation costs involving the IRS making a claim that was 3 times what they were actually owed was the liability of the McKee family to suffer. An added penalty so to speak.

It is a short read but the sum of it is the Tax Court held the IRS was not liable for their calculation blunders on the basis that the Tax Court, in its discretion, claimed the regulations written by the IRS and codes were so complex that the IRS could not be held liable for its failure to understand them. The 9th Circuit reversed. The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue asked the 9th Circuit not to make the decision public.

And now you have it. No matter what they do with it, you have a copy of it and the Commissioner is bound by the decision. Imagine, the taxpayer claiming mistake because the statutes and regulations were so complex and the IRS rejecting that and seeking penalties for failure to measure up.

This decision and the Tax Court abuse of discretion show that the Tax Court is not a Court at all but a place where the complexity can be filtered to the benefit of the IRS. I do not mind the Government having the benefit when the law supports their claim but when the law is basically written by them and they claim it is so complicated they cannot be held liable for their mistakes, and they deal with it every day for their job, what does that say about the rest of America ?

It is so complicated. The IRS cannot comply with their own regulations nor even understand what they say. Add this to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 duties upon them and it is like having this in HD.

In short conclusion I would say that Judges will eventually show up at the dance but they probably will not be invited nor will they enter as everyone else. It is always good to have someone monitoring the cameras from the side and rear entrances just so we know when they are their and when they have left the building.