- 5 -
On September 14, 1995, respondent filed the Motion To
Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be
Granted that is presently pending before the Court. In her
motion respondent contends, inter alia, that the amended petition
includes "no allegations of justiciable error as to the
adjustments to taxable income made by the respondent."
On September 18, 1995, the Court issued an order directing
petitioner to file a second amended petition on or before October
10, 1995. In particular, the Court directed that the second
amended petition should set forth with specificity each error
allegedly made by respondent in the determination of the
deficiencies and separate statements of every fact upon which the
assignments of error are based. The Order also served to notify
petitioner that respondent's motion would be called for hearing
at the Court's Motions Session to be held in Washington, D.C.,
on October 18, 1995.
Petitioner did not comply with the Court's Order dated
September 18, 1995. Rather, on October 16, 1995, petitioner
filed a Rule 50(c) statement repeating the allegations set forth
in his original imperfect petition.5
5 The heart of petitioner's Rule 50(c) statement provides as
follows:
I see no reason to submit an AMENDED claim because
everything was listed on the original filing. I was
under the false impression that the TAX COURT was a
LEGITIMATE COURT, however, further research revealed
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011