- 7 -
Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). The failure of
a petition to conform with the requirements set forth in Rule 34
may be grounds for dismissal. Rules 34(a)(1); 123(b).
In general, the determinations made by the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer
bears the burden of proving that those determinations are
erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is
deemed to be conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v. Commissioner,
supra at 658 n.19; Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736, 739
(1980).
The petition and amended petition filed in this case do not
satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is
neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of
any justiciable claim. At best, petitioner's arguments amount to
nothing more than tax protester rhetoric and legalistic
gibberish, as demonstrated by the passages from those documents
that we have quoted above. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.
403 (1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.
1983).
The Court's Orders dated June 28, 1995, and September 18,
1995, provided petitioner with opportunities to assign error and
allege specific facts concerning his liability for the taxable
years in issue. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to properly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011