- 3 -
determination that petitioner underpaid his estimated income tax
for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993.
The Petition and Respondent's Motion To Dismiss
On May 11, 1995, this Court received and filed petitioner's
petition. On June 13, 1995, petitioner filed an Amended
Petition. On July 25, 1995, respondent filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Rule 40. Petitioner did not file a notice of objection.
By Order dated July 27, 1995, this Court directed petitioner
to file a Second Amended Petition on or before August 30, 1995,
stating specific allegations of error in the notice of deficiency
and a separate statement of facts on which petitioner bases the
assignment of each error. In addition, this Court set a hearing
for respondent's motion on October 2, 1995. The Court filed
petitioner's second amended petition on September 1, 1995, and a
hearing was held in accordance with the Order.
Respondent asserts that this case should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim because petitioner failed to allege in
the petition and the amended petition any justiciable error, and
merely asserts frivolous protester-type arguments. Petitioner's
primary argument, as best we can discern, is that although
"Petitioner did in fact receive payment for services" in the
years at issue, the payments were traded for labor of equal value
from which there can be no taxable gain.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011