- 3 -
petitioner’s claims of error with respect to respondent’s
determinations for 2003 are contained in the petition.
On October 27, 2005, respondent filed the motion to dismiss,
asserting that in the petition petitioner makes no claims of
factual error and asserts only frivolous law and legal
conclusions. Respondent posits that petitioner has not alleged
any justiciable error with respect to the determinations set
forth in the notice of deficiency or any facts in support of any
error. On December 27, 2005, petitioner filed his notice of
objection to respondent’s motion to dismiss.2
Discussion
Rule 34(b)(4) provides that a petition filed in this Court
shall contain “Clear and concise assignments of each and every
error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or
liability.” Further, Rule 34(b)(5) provides that the petition
2Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds in
petitioner’s lien and levy case at docket No. 16369-05L
(collection case). A hearing on respondent’s motion in the
collection case was held on Dec. 21, 2005. Petitioner did not
appear at that hearing. On Dec. 23, 2005, the Court entered an
order of dismissal and decision in the collection case. On Dec.
27, 2005, the Court received petitioner’s statement of position
with respect to the collection case. See Rule 50(c).
Although no hearing had been set for arguments on
respondent’s motion to dismiss in this case, on Dec. 27, 2005,
petitioner filed a premature written statement of his position
with respect to respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Court
concludes that a hearing is unnecessary for the proper
disposition of respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011