-3-
entitled to such relief. Petitioners submitted an unsigned
“Answer” to this motion in which they stated:
We come before the Court again. As we are seeking
injunctive relief totaling $57,083.67 in consideration. To
comply with the 22 March order, however, we ask the Court to
notice several specific errors in the respondent’s position:
(a) For the quarter ending 31 December 2005, the $976.00
deficiency or liability is underscored by our $1,169.36 in
paper assets such as mutual funds or a certificate of
deposit. This means our working capital or current ratio is
1.198 or 1 to 1. With $193.36 being our net working
capital. These positive numbers are set-off against the
phase-out formula that applies to the alternative minimum
tax liability.
The $56,107.87 Lein/Levy [sic] assessment may involve
questionable legality. Such as:
(a) Our 2002 tax form and supporting materials were sent via
certified mail, which was postmarked 09 April 2003. That
being 6 days prior to the 15 April 2003 deadline. However,
these facts are not mentioned in the transcript of 1-07-05.
(b) Our tax filing date was erroneously reported as 07-07-
03. This constitutes an 82 to 88 day time gap, which
allowed us to be hit with a $55,686.75 tax assessment plus
interest and penalties. Thus amounting to an overall tax
liability of $56,107.87 or more. We respectfully disagree
with ambiguous nature of said procedure.
Approximately 1 month later, the Court granted respondent’s
motion for a more definite statement and ordered petitioners to
file an amended petition by May 13, 2005.
On May 16, 2005, petitioners, in purported compliance with
the Court’s order, filed with the Court a second amended
petition. The second amended petition stated:
Procedure Rule 331 directly answers the respondent’s motion
for a more definite statement. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, we
respectfully show unto the Court: The Detroit Appeals Office
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011