- 4 -
the insufficiency of petitioner’s petition under Rule 34(b)
(which sets forth the required contents of a petition), the lack
of merit of her legal position, the failure to allege any facts,
or the possibility of a penalty under section 6673(a).
Petitioner and respondent appeared at the calendar call and
filed a stipulation of facts. At the calendar call, petitioner
lodged and served on respondent a “Memorandum of Law in Support
of Petition”. At the hearing, respondent’s counsel indicated, in
response to the Court’s questions, that respondent would allow a
loss with respect to Lind-Waldock & Co. if petitioner would
otherwise concede the case. Petitioner rejected respondent’s
offer; she replied: “I would truly like to stand on the
memorandum of law that I submitted to the Court and would not be
willing to make that agreement, your Honor.” The Court thereupon
caused petitioner’s memorandum to be filed as petitioner’s motion
for summary judgment, and respondent countered with an oral
motion for summary judgment. The Court informed the parties that
respondent need not file any papers in support of respondent’s
cross-motion and that it was taking the matter under advisement.
Discussion
Although we have inherent power to dismiss a party’s case
for failure to state a claim, see Rule 123(b); May v.
Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 1303-1304 (8th Cir. 1985)(tax
protester arguments, including denial that wages are income;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011