- 6 -
In his amended petition and in his second amended petition,
petitioner makes tax protester arguments that have been
repeatedly rejected by this Court and others as inapplicable or
without merit. See, e.g., Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007
(9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Rowlee v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C.
1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983). We see no need
to repeat these discussions here.
Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) provides in pertinent part that the
petition in a deficiency action shall contain "Clear and concise
assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges
to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination
of the deficiency or liability", and "Clear and concise lettered
statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments
of error."
We agree with respondent that petitioner's petition does not
allege any justiciable error with respect to respondent's
determinations in the notice of deficiency and alleges no
justiciable facts in support of any error as required by Rule
34(b)(4) and (5). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss
will be granted, and decision will be entered for respondent.
Next, on the Court's own motion, we impose a penalty under
section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that
whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it
have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011