I didn’t read the petition in Dennis W. Gilbert. Docket No. 24455-13, filed 3/13/14*, as petitions aren’t available on-line, so I can’t say if STJ Daniel A. (“Yuda”) Guy was right when he quoted IRS’ answer to Dennis’ petition.

But IRS was colorful, whether or not accurate, and that earns them a mention on taishofflaw.com.

Judge Yuda: “Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination. The petition is limited to a series of questions related to the definitions of various statutory terms. Petitioner does not dispute that he received the items of income determined in the notice of deficiency.

“As indicated, respondent filed a motion to dismiss asserting that petitioner ‘makes no factual claims of error in the petition but argues only “’legalistic gibberish.'” We agree. Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the additions to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts upon which the assignments of error are based. The petition in this case does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any justiciable claim. Rather, the petition contains nothing but meaningless questions.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

That’s pretty tough language from Judge Yuda, though when it comes to legalistic gibberish I’d be careful about throwing stones. Even if Judge Yuda is waving the Section 6673 chopper at Dennis, I’ve encountered legalistic gibberish from more august sources than Dennis.

*Dennis W Gilbert 24455-13 3 13 14