Opinion
16703-22S
02-28-2023
ORDER
DIANA L. LEYDEN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
On November 2, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (motion).
On November 3, 2022, the Court directed petitioner, on or before December 1, 2022, to file an objection, if any, to respondent's above-referenced motion. The Court further directed that petitioner may file with the Court a proper Second Amended Petition that sets forth clear and concise assignments of each and every error that petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiencies, additions to tax, and/or penalties in dispute in this case, and clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error. See Rule 34(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). Petitioner failed to respond.
By Order served January 23, 2023, respondent's above-referenced motion was assigned to the undersigned for disposition.
On February 27, 2023, the Court held a conference call with the parties, which included the assistance of a Spanish interpreter.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (motion), filed November 2, 2022, will be held in abeyance. It is further
ORDERED that the time for petitioner to file a proper Second Amended Petition (see form attached), is extended to April 17, 2023. Petitioner is advised that in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Amended Petition she should state in clear and concise statements what proposed changes listed in the notice of deficiency he disagrees with and a summary of facts that support his disagreements. See Rule 34(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).