Rob R. Olsen - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                 
                  Respondent's motion to dismiss was called for hearing in Washington,                
            D.C., on August 16, 1995.  Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and             
            presented argument on the pending motion.  Petitioner did not appear at the               
            hearing; however, as previously indicated, he did file a Rule 50(c) statement.            
                  Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss for failure              
            to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  We may grant such a motion            
            when it appears beyond doubt that the party's adversary can prove no set of               
            facts in support of a claim that would entitle him or her to relief.  Conley              
            v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Price v. Moody, 677 F.2d 676, 677 (8th              
            Cir. 1982).                                                                               
                  Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court contain clear            
            and concise assignments of each and every error that the taxpayer alleges to              
            have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency            
            and the additions to tax in dispute.  Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that the             
            petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which              
            the taxpayer bases the assignments of error.  See 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 filed in this case does not satisfy the requirements of                
            Rule 34(b)(4) and (5).  There is neither assignment of error nor allegation of            

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011