- 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