DocketNumber： Docket No. 18155-93
Filed Date： 12/28/1993
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUCKLEY, Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 1991 $ 1,669 $ 394 $ 87
| Additions to Tax | |||
| Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6654 |
| 1991 | $ 1,669 | $ 394 | $ 87 |
Each determination consisted of one-half of unreported community income wages.
Petitioners resided at Mesa, Arizona, when they timely filed the petition herein.
The petition and amended petition in this case1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 643">*644 do not meet the requirements of our Rule 34(b)(4) that a petition shall contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error which petitioner alleges to have been committed by respondent in the determination of the deficiency. Further, it does not contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases his assignments of error, as required by our Rule 34(b)(5).
Rule 34(b)(4) also provides that "Any issue not raised in the assignment of errors shall be deemed to be conceded." Petitioners do not contend that they did not receive wage income during 1991, they do not contend an error in the amount of wage income, nor do they contend they filed returns in a timely manner, reported such wage income thereon or paid sufficient estimated or withholding tax to relieve them of liability under section 6654.
The petition and petitioners' objections to respondent's motion to dismiss are filled with tax-protestor material long rejected by this and other courts. While much of these filings is no more than gibberish, what we can interpret is that petitioners complain the Commissioner did not state what "kind of tax" was being asserted, and they therefore were1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 643">*645 without lawful notice; 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 643">*646 Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the case at bar petitioners presented no facts or law in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief. Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss will be granted. At the calendar call, and prior to the hearing on respondent's motion, the Court advised petitioners that their petition and amended petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be afforded and noted that it contained tax-protestor arguments which had been repeatedly rejected by this Court and every other court which has faced these issues. Petitioners were also warned that if petitioners continued to make such arguments the Court was inclined to award a penalty to the United States. Petitioners were given the opinion of this Court in to read prior to the hearing. At the hearing, petitioners stated they had read " Respondent, as a part of her motion to dismiss, did not request an award of a penalty under section 6673. That section provides that this Court may award a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000 to the United States where the proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or where the taxpayer's position is frivolous. We have decided to make such an award sua sponte, and we award a penalty to the United States in the amount of $ 900. Petitioners have wasted not only judicial time but also time of the respondent in making these frivolous and groundless allegations.