Opinion
16544-23
08-12-2024
ROBERT E. WILSON & SHIRLEY B. WILSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
Pending before the Court in this deficiency action is petitioners' Motion for More Definite Statement Pursuant to Rule 51, filed January 16, 2024. On February 20, 2024, respondent filed an Objection thereto. For the reasons that follow, we will deny petitioners' Motion.
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Under Rule 51(a), if a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted or required is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, then the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. See Ryskiewicz v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 83, 85 (1974). The basic standard to be used in determining whether a pleading should be made more definite is expressed in Rule 31(a), which provides that "the purpose of a pleading is to give the parties and the Court fair notice of the matters in controversy and the basis for the parties' respective positions." See Ryskiewicz, 63 T.C. at 85; see also Note to Rule 51, 60 T.C. at 1092 (1973) ("In determining whether a pleading should be made more definite, the basic standard in Rule 31(a) should be applied.").
Petitioners' Motion is directed to paragraphs I, IX, X, XI, XXII.10, XXII.11, and XXII.12 of respondent's Answer, filed December 1, 2023. With the exception of paragraph X, which respondent admitted in part, respondent denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information the allegations set forth in those corresponding paragraphs of the Petition. Accordingly, those portions of respondent's Answer neither require nor permit a responsive pleading and thus fall outside the clear language of Rule 51(a). See Trasatti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-448.
In paragraph X of the Answer, respondent admitted that petitioners timely filed their 2017 Form 1040 and that petitioners filed an amended 2017 Form 1040X. Respondent denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph X of the Petition.
As respondent notes in his Objection, the Answer "contained no affirmative allegations regarding issues on which he had the burden of proof and contained only two allegations at all." Paragraph II alleges that the notice of deficiency was sent to petitioners' last known address (the address listed in the notice), and paragraph VI alleges that the notice was so sent on August 7, 2023. These paragraphs are neither vague nor ambiguous and clearly satisfy the basic standard: Each gives petitioners and this Court fair notice of the matters in controversy and respondent's position with respect to those matters. Indeed, petitioners' Motion does not even appear to take issue with either paragraph or the allegations set forth therein.
In sum, as we find that respondent's Answer satisfies the fair notice requirement of Rule 31(a) and contains the requisite form and content for a proper answer under Rule 36(b), we will deny petitioners' Motion. We have considered all of petitioners' other arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' above-referenced Motion is denied.