- 6 -
hearing in this matter from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco, as
requested in petitioner's motion filed one day prior to the date
of the scheduled hearing, would serve no purpose but to delay the
resolution of respondent's motion. Consequently, petitioner's
motion will be denied.
Respondent's Motion
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the
additions to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that
the petition contain clear and concise statements of the facts on
which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. See Jarvis v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).
The petition filed in this case does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Although petitioner
states that he disagrees with respondent’s determinations, there
is neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support
of any assigned error. After having been provided the
opportunity to do so, petitioner failed to file a proper amended
petition as he was directed to by the Court. The allegations
contained in the petition that petitioner has not had an
opportunity to meet with respondent to discuss his 1991 Federal
income tax liability and that respondent has failed to respond to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011