Tax Court
(Tax Liability)

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.

Henry Patriot

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

Table of Contents

  1. Letters
    1. Listing of Letters and Notices from the IRS
      1. Letters and Notices from the IRS
      2. Peymon's IRS Letters and Notices
    2. Response to 30 Day Letter
      1. Response to 30 Day Letter
      2. Alternate Response to the 30 Day Letter
      3. Another Response to 30 Day Letter
      4. Response to 30 Day Letter & Appeal
      5. Response to 30 day Letter (Self Employed)
      6. Another Response to 30 Day Letter (Self Employed)
      7. Rhonda's 30 day letter
      8. Larry�s 30 day letter
      9. Response to 30-Day Letter on Hardship
    3. General Responses
      1. General Reply to Any Request
      2. Sample Letter to IRS
      3. Sample Fake Cooperation Letter
      4. Response to Threat Letter
      5. Clarkson's Certificate of Mailing
      6. Response to IRS Crazy Letter
    4. Employer Letters
      1. Privacy Letter to Employer
      2. Employer's Response to IRS Request
  2. Your Petition to Tax Court:
    1. Newest Tax Court Petition
    2. Tax Court Filing Instructions by Harry and Dr. Clarkson
    3. Clarkson's Instructions for Tax Court Petition
    4. IRS Instructions and Tax Court Petition Form
      (Note: requires Adobe Reader)
    5. PN Tax Court Petition
    6. Sample Petition to Tax Court (old)
    7. Attachment to Tax Court Petition
    8. Tax ID Number
    9. Request for Place of Trial
  3. Additional Assistance for Your Petition
    1. Tax Court Preliminary Letter
    2. Cover Letter and Indigency Letter
    3. Application for Waiver of Filing Fees
    4. Reply to Answers with Cohen Case
    5. Reply to Answer to Amended Petition
    6. Expense Letter to Appeals
    7. Motion for Leave
  4. Reports from Inside Tax Court
    1. Jimmy's Report on Tax Court Appearance
    2. Exciting Day in Tax Court
    3. Harry's Resounding Victory!
    4. Tax Court Wins!
    5. Henry Fights the Tax Thieves
    6. Patriots put PN Principles to Work in Tax Court
    7. IRS Lawyer Assaults New PN Executive Director
    8. Not one losing case for the PN

This part is now password protected. Call Dr. Clarkson for the access code and then click here.

Subscribe to PN-Taxcourt e-grouproup
Powered by

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.


Michael Mountain
1776 Freedom Way
Liberty, SC 29610

Indigence Letter

Mrs. Ima Citizen
101 Patriot Way
Anytown, USA 20217

To Clerk of Court
US Tax Court
400 Second Street, NW
Washington DC, 2021717

Re: Citizen vs. CIR, docket # _______

Dear Clerk of Court;

Please find enclosed my petition to the tax court.

I request permission to file my petition in forma pauperis. I request that the filing fees be waived due to my indigence.

I am not gainfully employed. I own no real-estate or any properties. I have no investments, no assets, no stocks and bonds, and no savings account. I do not own anything and I do not have enough money to pay my bills.

Therefore, I request that the filing fees be waived.

Also enclosed is my form 5 for the place of trial and my form 4 Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number.


Ima Citizen

Request for Full Trial

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

Motion for Extension of Time

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.

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

Notice of Appeal

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.

Jimmy's Report on Tax Court Appearance

Regarding Tax Court in Tampa, FL on November 17:

  1. Not ONE court watcher that I invited showed up despite sending out 2 alerts regarding it to a large patriot email list. RBC says: Only club members will show up because they know you. People who do not attend meetings will not show up to support you.

  2. We ran into a gentleman about 2 weeks before court. His initials are J. R. We had initially met him 3 years earlier. He's from Florida and is an avid researcher regarding taxes. He came to court with us and was to be our clerical assistant sitting with us at each hearing.

  3. The docket was called at 10 AM and Judge Wells accommodated us by having our hearings one after the other. My son's first at 3PM, mine, and wife's right after that.

  4. Before our hearings, the District Counsel (DC) asked who J. R. was. We said our assistant. When the hearing started we had every law and statute (piles of books) opened up on the table. Our intent was to make the DC show us the law or statute she relied on to make her assessments and we would review it in the law and refute it and have that on the record. (RBC does not recommend this method.)

  5. Before the Judge came in for my son's hearing, the DC walked over to our table and asked again who J. R. was and who he was with. J. R. said he was our clerical assistant and was with advocates for judicial reform. At this point, DC immediately walked over to the judge's secretary and whispered something in her ear. The secretary got up and went into the judge's chamber for a minute or so and then returned.

  6. The judge came in and the first thing he did (because we were all sitting at the petitioner's table) was to ask J. R. who he was. He then told him to take a seat back in the courtroom. Then he told me and my wife that our hearing was later and said for us to go and sit in the courtroom area also. That left my son all by himself at the table with piles of books (IRM manuals, Federal Statutes, court case cites, etc.).

  7. My son got nowhere initially because the judge kept overruling him whenever he objected to DC's statements and her entering of so-called evidence. My son continually asked the judge to have DC site the code or statute on which assessments were made and the judge said that he knew the law and would decide it. (RBC does not recommend this.)

  8. DC produced a witness (Mr. S. from an insurance company). DC made the point that the witness was in charge of the 1099's and the income stated on them for my son. My son now cross examined the witness (and things got very interesting). He asked the witness many questions such as: Do you sign the checks? Do you personally know of the income that is put on the 1099's? Is this all done on computers? Do you ever have technicians fix glitches in the computer system and how often?....etc.

  9. Then, came the most interesting questions he asked the witness: Do you know that the 1099-Misc Form is a True Tax Class 5 document according to the IRS and that a True Tax Class 5 document is for Estate and Gift tax reporting? Were you aware that you were reporting True Tax Class 2 income on the wrong document?

    At this point, the judge just sat there listening intently to this exchange of questions and answers and never stopped it from continuing to the end. The witness's answer was that he didn't know he was using the wrong document because this is what the IRS told him to use and he was told to do the same by his predecessor about 10 years back when he took the job. At this point my son's hearing ended.

  10. When my hearing and my wife's came up, we both asked for the code or statute that allowed the DC to make her assessments and got nowhere. The judge basically said are you using the same defense as your son and snickered at us. (RBC does not recommend this.)

  11. The judge then said he would make his determinations at 9AM on Thursday. That meant that My son, my wife, and I, would have to drive another 300 miles to be there on Thursday.

  12. On Wednesday, the day before we were supposed to return for the determinations, I decided to call the Tax Court to make sure nothing had changed. To my surprise, I was told that the judge had changed the date and time to Wednesday at 11AM. Well, here it was Wednesday about 9AM and there was no way that we could now get together and drive up to Tampa in time to hear the judge give his pronouncements. He pulled a sneaky little trick with this change of day and time.

  13. Since then I have been checking the Docket sheets for all of us on line and they are not even up-to-date. Also, they do not show anything regarding the judges determinations or if, in fact, he ever even made any in our cases. After almost a month, no decision was listed on the tax court website. We are thinking that the judge may have pigeon-holed our cases. Only time will tell.

  14. J. R. made us aware of this whole thing. If you go to document 6209 (the Internal Revenue Manual) you will find that W-2's, W-4's and 1099-Misc. Forms are all classification 5 documents for reporting Estate and Gift taxes. This was also brought to the attention of Richard Cornforth who thinks that we may have something very important here. J. R. is an avid researcher and devotee of Cornforth and checks with him frequently. (RBC does not recommend this approach.)

  15. At this point, until we get a determination from the judge, we are holding steady to see what he does. Because of the classification 5 document information, it means that all private sector employers have been using the wrong forms (illegally) to report "supposed income" to the IRS for many years. This could be a very big thing for all of us!

  16. My son has ordered and paid for a typed transcript of his hearing. It should be mailed to him shortly. We want to see if anything has been removed from the record. We tried to get a tape-recording of his hearing, but guess what, they will not make them available to anyone. RBC says: the law mandates they give anybody a copy of the proceedings which are a matter of public record.

  17. Based on this information regarding the classification 5 documents that came out at the hearing, My son, myself and several other insurance agents will be sending letters to the CEO's and heads of the legal department of each corporation who has issued 1099's to us over the past several years. We are asking them to tell us why and on what authority they are doing this because it is obviously illegal (since the IRS has told them that this is the proper form(s) to report "supposed income" on. Depending on their answers to the letters, we could entertain future legal action against them.

  18. Well Robert, that pretty much updates you on our situation and what has happened to date. Dec 24, 2008

Tax Collectors Manual
The actual IRS book for tax collectors

Learn how the tax thieves operate and how you can beat them. Useful information..$8

Robert Clarkson (864)225-3061
PO Box 2368, Anderson SC 29621



For technical web problems or questions contact PNwebmaster