Did Petitioner-Tatar carry his burden of proof for his tax refund claims?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did Petitioner-Tatar when he filed his Form(s) 843, Claim(s) for Refund concerning the tax years 1996 through and inclusive to 2010, with the Respondent Internal Revenue Service located in Fresno, California with such document being dated ; and sent February 14, 2016, carry his “burden of proof’? as to his contention for such Claim(s) for Refund that he incurred “no tax due and owing” concerning each tax year in question, such claim being supported in the filed document his Memorandum in support thereof? Was the “burden of proof’ thereby “shifted” to the Respondent concerning Petitioner's administrative Claim(s) for Refund, but was never rebutted in any way shape or form by the RespondentInternal Revenue Service? If such “burden of proof’ was indeed “shifted” to the Respondent, was the Respondent thereby technically and by the “rule of law” in default and thus required to respond to such Memorandum, point by point, in the ensuing Complaint filed by the Petitioner in the U.S. District Court? 2. In the criminal tax case of United States v Tommy Cryer, Case No. 06-50164-01(2007), when Defendant-Cryer submitted his Memorandum (Proof) : in support of his Motion to Dismiss, 3-felony count indictments for “tax evasion’, which were subsequently dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Louisiana; now that this Petitioner-Tatar having submitted a similar Memorandum as Proof of his li Claim(s) for Refund filed with Internal Revenue Service and subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court to enforce his Claim(s) for Refund based upon his contention that as concerning his tax years in question 1996 through 2010, that “there was no tax due and owing”, See Appx A, pp 1-178, when the U.S. District Court dismissed this Petitioner’s Claim(s) for Refund without a review, or rebuttal, or any counter-analysis of his Memorandum, has Petitioner’s substantive rights to equal protection of the law been violated? 3. When the U.S. District Court, as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal in dealing with : Petitioner-Tatar’s Complaint to enforce his Claim(s) for Refund, did both courts ignore and shirk their responsibility to be independent and apply the “rule of law”, but instead used the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and thereby dismissed and ruled against this Petitioner by stating that his Memorandum, filed in support of his Claim(s) for Refund, to be labeled as “frivolous and without merit” and thereby denied this Petitioner his reasonable due process rights?