- 5 -
Under Rule 34(b)(4) and (5), a petition must contain "Clear
and concise assignments of each and every error which the
petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in
the determination of the deficiency" and "Clear and concise
lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the
assignments of error". Moreover, any issue not raised in the
pleadings is deemed conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646 (1982); Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.
736, 739 (1980).
In general, determinations made by the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer
bears the burden of proving that those determinations are
erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933).2
The petition filed in this case does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither
assignment of any error nor any allegation of fact in support of
a justiciable claim. Instead, petitioners' filings contain a
hodgepodge of rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic
2The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring & Reform Act of
1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(a), 112 Stat. 685,
726-727, added sec. 7491, which shifts the burden of proof to the
Secretary in certain circumstances. Sec. 7491 is applicable,
however, to "court proceedings arising in connection with
examinations commencing after the date of the enactment of this
Act." RRA 1998 sec. 3001(c), 112 Stat. 727. The RRA 1998 was
enacted on July 22, 1998, and, accordingly, sec. 7491 is
inapplicable to this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011