STATE OF OUTH CAROLINA
ADMINSTRATIVE LAW COURT

  Anonymous Taxpayer,        )          
(Mike Freeman)               )     Docket No. 06-ALJ-17-0000-xx
      Petitioner,            )
                             )
 Vs.                         )          RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S
                             )          PRELIMINARY TAX STATEMENT
South Carolina Department    )
Of Revenue                   )
Respondent.                  )
  ___________________________

Petitioner hereby files his Response to Respondent’s Preliminary Tax Statement dated Dec 7, 2006 as follows:

  1. Taxpayer incorporates by reference his preliminary tax statement dated Dec 13, 2006. Further Taxpayer wishes to add that he requests a waiver of penalties. The state and federal tax codes are so complex and confusing that nobody knows what they mean. Taxpayer without any formal education did his best to do the right thing and should not be penalized.
    2. Taxpayer requests an out of court settlement with credit for his deductions and expenses, plus waiver of penalties.

  2. Taxpayer denies using any arguments that have been classified as “tax protestor” arguments or frivolous and groundless. He has previously withdrawn any possible positions that could be interpreted as “tax protestor” arguments or frivolous and groundless and hereby again withdraws any such, if they exist. Therefore the Department is not entitled to damages.

    3. DOR hurls accusations at Taxpayer, but does not present any proof. DOR should be required to be more specific and inform this Court when and where Taxpayer raised such arguments.

  3. In his letter of Dec 7, 2006 Chief Counsel Urban insulted, degraded and demeaned Taxpayer and should be required to withdraw that letter or be admonished by the Court.
  4. In paragraph 3, subparagraph 3 of said Preliminary Statement, DOR claims to have received information from the IRS but does not state how they received it or whether the information is correct. The SC tax laws provide that Taxpayer to be informed of information against them. Taxpayer believes these figures are not correct. Taxpayer requests proof that the W-2 wages were paid to him directly and not paid to some illegal alien who may have stolen his identity.'
  5. DOR filed their Final Agency Determination on Sept 13, 2006. Almost of this document consisted of an analysis of the Constitutionality of the state and federal income tax laws, none of which is an issue in this case. Chief Counsel is attempting to prejudice the court against Taxpayer by a detailed discussion of a non-issue. This long and complicated argument, which has nothing to do with this case, confused Taxpayer and forced him to expend more resources to counter Counsel’s non-relevant argument. Therefore DOR should pay Taxpayer damages.

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

 

 ___________________________________              Date: January 8, 2007
         Mike Freeman
         1776 Freedom Way
         Freetown, USA