Vivan D. Rodriguez - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

          regarding the method whereby she was selected for audit, as well            
          as the audit techniques utilized by respondent.                             
               Subsequent to the filing of respondent's motion, the Court             
          noted that it reviewed the petition and agreed with respondent              
          that the allegations therein were tax protester allegations that            
          have been repeatedly rejected by this and other Courts.  The                
          petitioner was ordered to file an objection, if any, to                     
          respondent's motion or, alternatively, an amended petition that             
          alleged adequate assignments of errors and statements of facts in           
          support of those assignments of error as to the merits of                   
          respondent's determinations.  Petitioner did not file an                    
          objection, an amended petition, or any other response.  Under               
          these premises, no useful purpose would be served by affording              
          the parties further hearing in this matter.                                 
               In her motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the                 
          petitioner fails to allege clear and concise assignments of error           
          in respondent's deficiency determinations in violation of Rule              
          34(b)(4).  Further, respondent contends that the petition fails             
          to allege clear and concise lettered statements of fact on which            
          petitioner bases the assignments of error, in violation of Rule             
          34(b)(5).  A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where                 
          petitioner raises no justiciable issues.  See Abrams v.                     
          Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 408 (1984); Brayton v. Commissioner,             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011