- 5 -
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 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 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 fact in support of any
justiciable claim. Rather, there is nothing but tax protester
rhetoric and legalistic gibberish, as demonstrated by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011