- 10 -
that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and any
addition 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, amended petition, and the second 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. Rather,
there is nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalistic
gibberish, as demonstrated by the passages from petitioner's
pleadings and other documents that were previously quoted. See
Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984); Rowlee v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011