- 5 -
Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition
setting forth with specificity each error allegedly made by
respondent in the determination of the deficiency and separate
statements of every fact upon which the assignments of error are
based. Petitioner failed to respond to the Court's order as
directed.
Respondent's motion to dismiss was called for hearing
pursuant to notice in Washington, D.C., on March 6, 1996.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented
argument on the pending motion. Petitioner did not appear at the
hearing. However, she did file a Rule 50(c) statement with the
Court shortly before the hearing.3
In her Rule 50(c) statement, petitioner again reiterated her
claim that her rights have been violated by the issuance of the
notices of deficiency. Thus, petitioner's Rule 50(c) statement
includes the following statements:
in preparing notices of deficiency, respondent caused a
collateral estoppel and/or res judicata in violation of
petitioner's constitutional right of due process;
respondent is attempting to extort monies from
petitioner utilizing the notices of deficiency in
violation of law and Petitioner's constitutional right
to due process of law; notices of deficiency contain
penalties in violation of petitioner's constitutional
3 Petitioner did not sign the Rule 50(c) statement. We find
this curious, given that petitioner attempts to raise a
constitutional issue out of the alleged "failure" of respondent's
Service Center director to sign the notices of deficiency.
However, the fact of the matter is that the copy of each such
notice that is attached as an exhibit to the petition bears such
signature.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011