- 4 -
on behalf of the trust.”
Upon the filing of respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court
issued an Order directing Deschutes to file an objection, if any,
to respondent’s motion, taking into account Rule 60 and attaching
to its objection a copy of the trust instrument or other
documentation showing that the petition was filed on behalf of a
fiduciary legally entitled to institute a case on Deschutes’s
behalf.
Shortly after the issuance of the foregoing Order,
respondent filed a Supplement to respondent’s motion to dismiss,
attaching thereto copies of certain documents that respondent had
just received from Robert Hogue. The Court then extended the
time within which Deschutes was to file any objection to
respondent’s motion to dismiss, as supplemented.
D. Deschutes’s Objection
Ultimately, the Court received an Objection, leave for the
filing of which was granted, to respondent’s motion to dismiss,
as supplemented. The Objection, which was signed by Robert
Hogue, has as its core thesis that this case should be:
dismissed for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on
the grounds that the Notice of Deficiency issued by
respondent was issued on heresay [sic] evidence.
Petitioner demands that respondent provide certified
facts or evidence of a statutory correct assessment or
tax liability to support any claimed deficiency.
Lacking a statutory correct assessment or tax liability
the notice of deficiency is null and void and this
court does not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011