- 66 -
Petitioners’ Motion To Dismiss
On October 16, 2000, three days after we issued the October
13, 2000 Order compelling petitioners to produce the requested
documents of Sandbar Wholesale Trust and Sandbar Real Estate
Trust to counsel for respondent and one week before the date of
trial in this case, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss (peti-
tioners’ motion to dismiss). In that motion, petitioners asked
the Court to dismiss this case because the Court does not have
jurisdiction over it. In support of petitioners’ motion to
dismiss, petitioners stated:
As grounds for this motion, petitioners would show the
Court that the statutory notice of deficiency was not
executed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The statutory notice of deficiency at issue in
this case, although containing the Commissioner’s name,
was executed by “R. Arnold.” * * *
Rule 13 of the United States Tax Court expressly
provides that “the jurisdiction of the Court depends
(1) in a case commenced in the Court by a taxpayer,
upon the issuance by the Commissioner of a notice of
deficiency in income....”
* * * the term Commissioner * * * means the Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue, personally.
On October 19, 2000, we issued an Order (October 19, 2000
Order) in which we denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss. In
that Order, we stated, inter alia:
The Court finds the * * * contentions of petitioners
[advanced in their motion to dismiss] to be groundless
and frivolous. The Court notes that petitioners con-
tinue to advance in this case what the Court finds to
be frivolous and groundless contentions. See sec.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011