- 5 -
relating to this case were automatically stayed pursuant to 11
U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8). On May 28, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order granting petitioners a discharge under 11 U.S.C.
sec. 727, which served to terminate the automatic stay. See 11
U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2)(C). Accordingly, on July 8, 2003, this
Court ordered that the stay of proceedings in this case is
lifted.
Rule 34(b)(4) provides that a petition filed in this Court
shall contain clear and concise assignments of each and every
error which petitioners allege to have been committed by
respondent in the determination of the deficiencies and additions
to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) provides that the petition
shall contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts
on which petitioners base the assignments of error. No
justiciable error has been alleged in the petition filed by
petitioners. By order dated March 15, 2000, we provided
petitioners an opportunity to file an amended petition which
would comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Petitioners, however,
chose not to file the amended petition. Further, petitioners did
not appear at the June 5, 2000, motion to dismiss hearing.
Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Generally, we may dismiss a petition for failure to state a claim
upon respondent’s motion when it appears beyond doubt that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011