United States Tax Court
Beverly Patriot                         )        DOCKET #____________________
Petitioner                              )
                                        )        Petition for Lien or Levy Action
v.                                      )        (Collection Action)
Commissioner Internal Revenue           )        Petition for Re-Determination of
Respondent                              )        Notice of Determination on CDPH
Petitioner Beverly S. Patriot hereby petitions the US Tax Court for a Re-determination of the Notice of Determination, dated May 9, 2007, based upon the following reasons:
  1. Pursuant to IRC §§ 6320 and 6330, Petitioner requested a face-to-face Collection Due Process Hearing for the tax period 1993 within the 30-day time period allowed by statute. The IRS Atlanta Appeals Office issued a “Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330” dated May 9, 2007. This denied Petitioner’s lawful request and is hereby appealed. To be filed separately, is the supplement to this petition which will discuss the individual particulars in this case.
  2. Congress has set forth three pre-conditions for Collection Due Process Hearing (herein referred to as CDPH):
    1. Petitioner must make request.
    2. Petitioner must make request in a timely manner, 30 days.
    3. Petitioner must state the purpose of the hearing which includes collection alternatives, procedure irregularities, spousal relief and tax liability in some cases.
  3. Petitioner complied with all of these. Further, the IRS has an extra precondition for taxpayer not to raise political, Constitutional and religious concerns. Petitioner complied with this extra requirement.
  4. The IRS has other irregular and interesting preconditions such as filling out forms and submitting a payment schedule. These requirements are impossible since Petitioner does not know what the IRS wants until she meets with the IRS. Petitioner is not required to do these, and did not. The elected representatives of the People did not vote these mandatory actions.
  5. The IRS illegally and wrongfully did not allow an in-person hearing and violated Petitioner’s statutory and administrative due process rights. Petitioner’s rights under the administrative procedure code include an opportunity to appear before the fact-finding tribunal. The U.S. Tax Court has held many times that the law requires an in-person hearing. Marett v. CIR, Docket # 4048-061, decided 7 Jul 06; Shell v. CIR, Docket # 20188-05L, decided 31 May 06; Nelson v. CIR, Docket # 13212-05L, decided 7 Nov 05.
  6. The definition of a hearing found in:
    1. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - 1996: A proceeding of relative formality at which evidence and argument may be presented on the matter at issue to be decided by a person or body having decision-making authority (compare trial) Note: The purpose of a hearing is to provide the opportunity for each side of a dispute, and esp. a person who may be deprived of his or her rights, to present its position. A hearing, along with notice, is a fundamental part of procedural due process. Hearings are also held, as for example, by a legislature or an administrative agency, for the purpose of gathering information and hearing the testimony of witnesses.
  7. Blacks Law Dictionary - 6th Edition: A proceeding of relative formality (though generally less formal than a trial), generally public, with a definite issues of fact or law to be tried, in which witnesses are heard and evidence presented.It is a proceeding where evidence is taken to determine issue all fact and rendered decision on basis of that evidence. People v. Ivenditti, 276 C.A.2d 178, 80 Cal. Rptr.761, 762.The parties proceeded against or otherwise involved have right to be heard, in much the same manner as a trial and such proceedings may terminate in final order.See e.g. 5 U.S.C.A.§ 556.
  8. Petitioner disagrees with all of the Notice of Determination except as admitted above.
  9. In the case of Schulz II, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a definitive ruling: Independent judicial review is required for all IRS collection enforcement activities. Now, the IRS is like landlords, banks and loan companies who need a court hearing before state action. The Debtor is entitled to an independent judge to scrutinize the enforcement activities of all collection agencies. Harsh actions are no longer allowed without the acquiescence or intervention from a judge. A judge is defined as holding a lifetime appointment with no diminishment in salary. Schulz v. IRS, 2nd Circuit, June 2005, 413 F.3d 297(2d)NY, 95 A.F.T.R.2d 2005-3007, 2005 WL 152090 Petitioner herby requests independent review of the administrative action. Please send the appropriate and necessary forms for Petitioner to comply with the mandate of the 2nd Circuit in Schultz II, supra.
  10. Petitioner requested a hearing (meaning a face to face hearing) within the time period and therefore is entitled to an in-person hearing.Under IRC §§6320 and 6330, Petitioner is entitled to a CDPH at a location convenient to her. Petitioner was not given the opportunity to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy at a hearing in accordance with IRC §§ 6320 and/or 6330(C). At the in-person hearing, which must be scheduled, Petitioner will be present in person and bring with her a tape recorder, witness and a representative. Please provide assistance in passing the tape recorder through security.
  11. Petitioner’s rights were violated. The Notice of Determination should be overturned, and a new proper CDP hearing should be scheduled.The Settlement Officer was not a person authorized to hold a CDPH. THE UMBRELLA OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS
  12. Petitioner seeks judicial review of the IRS tax assessment under the due process clause of the United States Constitution.No government agency can take any action against any Citizen absent judicial intervention. Government agents are not allowed into people's homes or people's pocketbooks without review by the independent judiciary.
  13. The seizure actions of virtually all other federal agencies are subject to judicial review. A hearing must be held prior to the agency seizing someone's property. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 96-97 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized "the right to a prior opportunity to be heard before chattels are taken from their possessor." "The appellees do not suggest that these [contractual] provisions waived the appellants' right to a full post-seizure hearing to determine whether those events had, in fact, occurred and to consider any other available defenses. By the same token, the language of the purported waiver provisions did not waive the appellants' constitutional right to a pre-seizure hearing of some kind... We hold that the Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin provisions work a deprivation of property without due process of law insofar as they deny the right to a prior opportunity to be heard before chattels are taken from their possessor... Since the essential reason for the requirement of a prior hearing is to prevent unfair and mistaken deprivations of property, however, it is axiomatic that the hearing must provide a real test. [D]ue process is afforded only by the kinds of `notice' and `hearing' that are aimed at establishing the validity, or at least the probable validity, of the underlying claim against the alleged debtor before he can be deprived of his property...." Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., at 343 (Harlan, J., concurring). See Bell v. Burson, at 540; Goldberg v. Kelly, at 267.
  14. In Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969), the U.S.Supreme Court addressed “the issue of whether a post-seizure hearing is meaningful in terms of due process and deciding that a pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard is necessary absent an important governmental or public interest to the contrary” under specific circumstances.
  15. Recent investigations of the problem have disclosed the grave injustices made possible by prejudgment garnishment whereby the sole opportunity to be heard comes after the taking [as noted by Congressman Sullivan, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, who held extensive hearings on this and related problems]... Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that where the taking of one's property is so obvious, egregious, and sinister in effect, it needs no extended argument to conclude that, absent notice and a prior hearing (cf. Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 423), this prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the fundamental principles of due process.
  16. Until Schulz II, supra, the IRS had been able to conduct seizures without judicial review.The recent ruling changed how the IRS must comply with judicial review, including how it conducts CDP hearings. Now, the IRS also is finally constrained by the "fundamental principles of due process", and its seizure attempts are subject to review by the independent judiciary in order to protect the rights of Citizens.
  17. In conclusion, Petitioner requests independent judicial review of IRS’s enforcement actions.The courts have a long string of cases requiring a judicial intervention under the due process clause before state action against a Citizen. Therefore, this court should schedule a hearing to review or scrutinize the intended IRS police state activities. Jun07

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Notice of Determination be overturned and that a new, proper CDPH be scheduled.

June 1, 2007

Beverly Patriot, pro se
Dahlonega, Georgia