Rob R. Olsen - Page 4

                                                - 4 -                                                 
            Respondent's Rule 40 Motion and Subsequent Developments                                   
                  As indicated, on July 13, 1995, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For            
            Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.  Shortly                       
            thereafter, on July 18, 1995, the Court issued an order calendaring                       
            respondent's motion for hearing and also directing petitioner to file a proper            
            amended petition in accordance with the requirements of Rule 34.  In                      
            particular, the Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition               
            setting 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.                                                 
            On August 8, 1995, petitioner filed:  (1) An objection to respondent's                    
            motion, (2) a Rule 50(c) statement, and (3) an amended petition.  Unlike the              
            petition, the amended petition is not terse.  It consists of 7 typewritten                
            pages and includes the following statements:                                              
                        Therefore Petitioner believing he is a non-taxpayer and not                   
                  required to file, further shows that even if he were compelled by                   
                  law to report, he is not mandated to assess, hence all of the                       
                  court's rulings on the voluntary assessment aspect of the tax                       
                  system, and without the voluntary assessment and material facts                     
                  the government prepared bookkeeping 'dummy/substitute'                              
                  forms/returns are without a basis in law or fact upon which to                      
                  rely for the authority to examine or audit.  The bookkeeping                        
                  returns prepared by the Respondent are Forms 1040.  Any issue                       
                  alleged for failure to report or file is an issue not justiciable                   
                  in this court, for this court has only been mandated to determine                   
                  the alleged civil liability, if there is one, after it has                          
                  exercised its review of the procedures used by Respondent in the                    
                  determinations made.                                                                
                                      *   *   *   *   *   *   *                                       
                        Petitioner states that the Form 1040 has not been authorized                  
                  by the Office of Management and Budget for the collection of                        
                  information/return for the Individual Income Tax found in Title 26                  
                  United States Code �1, which is a direct tax.                                       
                                      *   *   *   *   *   *   *                                       
                        Petitioner states that he is not identified in the Internal                   
                  Revenue Code by person, class of persons, and/or activity as a taxpayer             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011