Ruth R. Johnson-Straub - Page 6

                                        - 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.                                                
               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