- 5 -
this Court lacks "in personam" jurisdiction over petitioners and
that petitioners reside in the California Republic. The
objection also includes an objection to the spelling of
petitioners' names in capital letters because they are not
"fictitious entities". In view of the state of the record, we
conclude that no useful purpose would be served by scheduling a
hearing in this matter.
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
which 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011