- 5 - assertions, and legalistic gibberish. Further, petitioners did not file a proper second amended petition as directed by the Court in its order dated July 27, 1995. It would be wasteful to further elaborate on or evaluate petitioner's contentions in this opinion. "[T]o do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. per curiam an unreported Order of this Court. Petitioner is referred to respondent's motion to dismiss for citations to cases which have already adequately addressed petitioner's contentions. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, so much of respondent's motion as moves to dismiss with respect to the amount of the deficiencies and additions under sections 6651(a) and 6654 should be granted. See Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1984). We note that respondent has determined an addition to tax for fraudulent failure to file an income tax return for the year 1993 and in her motion requests that the Court find that there is due from petitioner an addition to tax under section 6651(f).2 Rule 34(b)(5) relieves petitioner from reciting facts underlying 2Sec. 7741(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA), Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106, 2404-2405, added subsec. (f) to sec. 6651 effective in cases of failure to file returns the due date for which (determined without regard to extensions) is after December 31, 1989.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011