- 5 -
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); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is
deemed to be conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v. Commissioner,
supra at 658 n.19; Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736, 739
(1980). The petition filed in this case does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither
assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any
justiciable claim. Rather, there is nothing but tax protester
rhetoric and legalistic gibberish, as indicated by the passages
of the petition and Objection that we have quoted above. See
Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984); Rowlee v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C.
1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983). No facts
supporting a "nonresident alien" finding have been alleged.
Further, petitioner did not appear at the call of this case for
hearing on respondent's motion, but purported to revoke his
signature on all previously filed Forms 1040. We see no need to
catalog petitioner's contentions and painstakingly address them.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011