- 4 -
Discussion
Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court may dismiss a petition when it appears beyond doubt
that the petitioner can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim that would entitle him to relief.
Under Rule 34(b)(4) and (5), a petition must contain "Clear
and concise assignments of each and every error which petitioner
alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the
determination of the deficiency" and "Clear and concise lettered
statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments
of error". Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is
deemed conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
646 (1982); Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736, 739 (1980).
In general, 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).
The petition and amended petitions filed in this case do not
satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is
neither assignment of any error, nor any allegation of fact in
support of a justiciable claim. Instead, there is nothing in
petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011