-5-
(3) We think our position is consistent with the
determination made under Arnett v. United States. (845 F
Supp 796 1994) Relative to White v. Commissioner. (T.C. Memo
1981-609) Furthermore, we think that our Accounts
Receivable can move our claim well past the 15 April 2005
Statute of Limitations under Klien v. Commissioner. (45 T.C.
308 1965) Nor did we sign away our taxpayer rights under
Goldsmith v. Commissioner. (31 T.C. 56 1958)
(4) We did exhaust our administrative remedies in
requesting refund of $1,593.91 taken from tax year 2004. We
would very much appreciate receiving the amount in question.
Along with the $768.99 taken for tax year 2000-2001. As
this issue is a matter of prior judgment.
(5) WHEREFORE, we pray that the court affirm or grant our
notice of objection.
Discussion
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
that the petitioning taxpayer alleges to have been committed by
the Commissioner in the determination of any deficiency, addition
to tax, or penalty in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires
that the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements
of the facts on which the taxpayer bases the assignments of
error. See Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 215 (2004);
Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982); Meeker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-146; Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-39. Any issue not raised in the pleadings is deemed
conceded. See Rule 34(b)(4); Funk v. Commissioner, supra; Jarvis
v. Commissioner, supra at 658 n.19; Gordon v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 736, 739 (1980); Meeker v. Commissioner, supra; Stearman v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011