- 10 -
Memo. 1987-242; Hebrank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-496; see
sec. 61(a).
An allegation in an unreported income case that respondent's
determination is arbitrary might under some circumstances be
viewed as a valid assignment of error. However, it is evident as
discussed above that the petition in the instant case amounts to
nothing more than a frivolous protest of this country's tax laws.
As we see it, petitioner's Motion to Shift the Burden of Proof to
Respondent is simply a transparent attempt at furthering that
protest. Consequently, petitioner's motion will be denied.
As previously indicated, where a party fails to plead or
otherwise proceed as provided in the Court's Rules, the Court may
hold such party in default and enter a decision against the party
on its own initiative. Rule 123(a). Although the petition
clearly fails to conform with Rule 34(b), petitioner will be
given another opportunity to correct the defects in his petition.
Accordingly, we shall issue an Order allowing petitioner a
reasonable amount of time to file a proper amended petition.5
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
5 In an effort to encourage petitioner to file a proper
amended petition, we will take this opportunity to remind
petitioner that sec. 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to
require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or
that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or
groundless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011