- 4 -
of error in violation of Rule 34(b)(5). In addition, respondent
contends that the document filed in this matter is not a proper
petition, but rather, is a "statement making frivolous
constitutional arguments with no factual basis"; that the
document filed does not comply with the Rules of the Tax Court as
to the form and content of a petition; that petitioner filed this
document as a protest to paying taxes; and that petitioner is a
devoted tax protester.
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
which the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the
additions 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011