- 5 -
a petition to conform with the requirements set forth in Rule 34
may be grounds for dismissal. Rules 34(a)(1), 123(b).
The petition filed in this case contains clear and concise
assignments of error and statements of facts. Thus, the petition
satisfies the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) with the
exception of the above-quoted paragraph. Because the petition
does state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we shall
deny respondent's motion to dismiss.
We turn now, on our own motion, to the issue of whether to
strike the above-quoted paragraph of the petition. Pursuant to
Rule 52, the Court, on its own initiative at any time, may order
stricken from any pleading any insufficient claim or defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, frivolous, or scandalous
matter. See Estate of Jephson v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 999
(1983); Allen v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 577, 579 (1979). The
above-quoted paragraph contains neither assignments of error nor
allegation of facts in support of any justiciable claim. Rather,
such paragraph contains nothing but tax protester rhetoric and
legalistic gibberish. 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). We see no need to catalog petitioner's contentions and
painstakingly address them. The short answer to them is that
petitioner is not exempt from Federal income tax. See Abrams v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011