Ruth R. Johnson-Straub - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          contravention of her constitutional rights, by determining                  
          deficiencies in her income taxes for the taxable years in issue.            
          Thus, the petition includes the following allegations:                      
               7.  That Respondent did further, in violation of law,                  
               and Petitioner's Constitutional right to Due Process of                
               Law, tell Petitioner to Petition tax court for a                       
               redetermination of the alleged deficiency.                             
               8.  That Respondent did further, in violation of law                   
               and Petitioner's constitutional right to Due Process of                
               Law, cause the [notices of deficiency] to be placed in                 
               the United States Mail, thereby utilizing the United                   
               States Postal Service in the attempt to extort monies                  
               not lawfully due and owing according to the                            
               Respondent's decision.                                                 
               9.  That Respondent did, in violation of law and                       
               petitioner's constitutional Right to Due Process of                    
               Law, attempt to obtain an unjust legal advantage over                  
               Petitioner, should Petitioner have failed to seek                      
               remedy in the tax court, by having affixed the Notice                  
               of Deficiency Waiver (Form 5564) to the alleged Notice                 
               of Deficiency, whereupon Respondent obtains a default,                 
               allowing Respondent to proceed without any regard to                   
               the rights of Petitioner.                                              

          Respondent's Rule 40 Motion and Subsequent Developments                     
               As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For                 
          Failure To State A Claim.2  On January 31, 1996, shortly after              
          respondent filed her motion to dismiss, the Court issued and                
          served an order calendaring respondent's motion for hearing and             
          also directing petitioner to file a proper amended petition in              
          accordance with the requirements of Rule 34.  In particular, the            

          2 Respondent subsequently supplemented her motion to dismiss                
          in order to clarify the determinations made in the notices of               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011