- 5 -
When respondent filed his motion to dismiss, on November 2,
2000, the Court, in an Order dated November 2, 2000:
ORDERED that the petitioners shall on or before
December 18, 2000, file with the Court an amended
petition in which they set forth with specificity each
error they allege was made by the respondent in the
determination of the deficiency and separate statements
of every fact upon which petitioners base the
assignment of each error.
On December 19, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended Petition
in which petitioners alleged, inter alia:
5. The determination of the tax set forth in the said
notice of deficiency (or liability), and the
deficiency itself, is based upon the following
errors:
(a) Respondent errored in that respondent, as per
the USC Title 26 sec. 1313(a), does not have authority
to make a “determination.”
(b) Respondent errored in that the “deficiency”
claimed by respondent, is not in compliance with USC
Title 26 sec. 6211(a) and USC Title 26 sec. 6212(a), in
that respondent failed to identify the statute, under
USC Title 26, Subtitle A or B, that was relied on to
claim a deficiency.
(c) Respondent errored as to a claim that
petitioner has a deficiency (tax liability), as
respondent has failed to providence (sic) facts or
evidence, as per USC Title 26, Regulation 301.6203-1,
of a statutory procedurally correct assessment to
support respondents claim.
(d) Respondent errored in that respondent has
failed to provide a competent witness to support any
claimed unreported or under reported income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011