- 8 -
Neither the petition nor the amended petition filed in this
case satisfies 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 the petition and the amended petition that we
have quoted above. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403
(1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.
1983).
The Court's Order dated September 18, 1995, provided
petitioners with an opportunity to assign error and allege
specific facts concerning their liability for the taxable years
in issue. The Court's Order dated October 18, 1995, provided
petitioners with yet additional time to file a proper amended
petition. Unfortunately, petitioners failed to properly respond.
Rather, petitioners elected to continue to proceed with time-worn
tax protester rhetoric. See Abrams v. Commissioner, supra;
Rowlee v. Commissioner, supra; McCoy v. Commissioner, supra;
Karlin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-496.
We see no need to painstakingly address petitioners' various
arguments. The short answer to those arguments is that
petitioners are not exempt from Federal income tax or from the
imposition of appropriate additions to tax. See Abrams v.
Commissioner, supra at 406-407. Moreover, as the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011