- 6 -
right to due process of law; respondent's agent did
tell petitioner to petition the United States Tax Court
in violation of her constitutional right to due process
of law; respondent did utilize the United States Postal
Service for transmitting illegal attempts at extorting
monies from petitioner.
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.
We may grant such a motion when it appears beyond doubt that the
party's adversary can prove no set of facts in support of a claim
which would entitle him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Price v. Moody, 677 F.2d 676, 677 (8th
Cir. 1982).
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and any
addition to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that
the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. See
Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). The failure of
a petition to conform with the requirements set forth in Rule 34
may be grounds for dismissal. Rules 34(a)(1), 123(b).
In general, the 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); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011