Idiots guide to writing a pleading

- It takes no great degree of legal sophistication to realize that

- This motion is interposed in the interest of the orderly administration of
justice.
- a proponent of the novel legal theory that if you just keep shoveling out
more and more half-baked, circumstantial evidence, one after another,
somehow the whole smelly heap will miraculously turn into a solid body
of proof. This reasoning would not dignify a proper hearing, let alone a
court of law.
- These other arguments of petitioner are barren and futile.
- Further, the Honorable Court should not buy the argument of the
_______________________ that _______________________________. It is too
elementary in our operating table of justice that
- Does not carry any weight under the rule of law
- salutary axiom/legal maxim
- Indeed, the wealth of evidence on the said subject matter belie
- Respondent finds it at the height of lawlessness that in this jurisdiction,
Respondent hereby pleads for this Honorable Court to render a decision
that would put some good sense into its present circumstances.
- Assuming, solely for the sake of argument/ Assuming in the extreme
that
- In no uncertain terms
- Even the most careful scrutiny shows that no evidence, oral or
documentary was ever presented to buttress this claim.
- Mere conjectures presented as facts
- Hypothetical and speculative at best
- Clutching at straws
- As it is bereft of any factual or legal basis.
- The above ruling applies in all fours to the instant case.
- Argument has no leg to stand on.
- Assuming argumenti
- The raison d’etre
- As clearly seen from this provision
- Elsewise stated
- The bare fact that
- The cardinal rule
- is a good indicia of
- The doctrine enunciated in
- The essence of
- Well-settled in this jurisprudence
- In fine/All told
- In light of all the foregoing/Anent the foregoing
- Assertions /Allegations/Averments
- The issues presented are a mere rehash of petitioner’s previous
arguments, all of which have been considered and found without merit
in our decision.
- It is a well-settled rule
- Admittedly,
- Dearth of merit
- Buttress the claim
- Not a single shred of evidence supports such averments.
- Stretching the imagination and using several inferences
- do not contain any probative value as the author was not presented in
court to authenticate the same, attest to the truthfulness thereof and be
subject to cross-examination.
- The paucity of merit in the ______'s position is
- The clear tenor of Section
- In brushing aside the foregoing argument
- Viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations
- To our mind
- indulging in gratuitous presumption and inference
- As aptly discussed above (in the case of)
- Simply stated
- It may not be amiss to state that
- This issue was squarely disposed of by this (Court) in case of other
applicants similarly situated as (petitioners)
- The preliminary but pivotal issue however is whether or not
- Petitioner’s position simply put
- Xxxxx must be seasonably availed of
- It is noteworthy that apart from her bare assertions
- Also without merit is the contention of petitioner
- The principle laid down in the foregoing case/s apply squarely in
- As can be gleaned (from)
- Respondent humbly manifests/submits
- Respondent begs to disagree
- Again, without sounding repetitious/To reiterate,
- The SC/Court held/espoused/said/propounded
- Petitioner’s argument is misplaced
- Furthermore, this case is similarly close to --------------. In that case,
-------------
- It must be stressed
- It is worth stressing that
- It bears stressing
- It is apt to restate here the time honored doctrine
- Upon scrutiny of the records of the case
- Records bear out that the
- Records disclose
- Upon examination of the records, it revealed that
- Be it emphasized, however, that
- It need not be overemphasized that
- testimony is teeming and fraught with contradictions and hence,
unreliable.

- **** Petitioner in its letter/protest dated ---- neither refuted nor

opposed the findings contained in the FAN/FDDA and instead made
baseless assertions without any foundation or leg to stand on.

- *** Considering that the assessment against petitioner is deemed final,

executory and demandable. It is already considered as an account
receivable and asset of the government. Thus, petitioner is liable to pay
its deficiency (income/sales) tax assessment/s for taxable year ----.

- ***It appears that Petitioner indeed failed to substantiate by clear and

convincing evidence that the --------.

- ***Petitioner undoubtedly failed to discharge the burden of proving the

incorrectness of the assessment and to prove that it is not liable for
deficiency (tax).

- ***The contention that the assessment does not state the facts and the
law upon which the assessment is based is without merit. Mere
allegations of vagueness and confusion in the mind of petitioner will not
 invalidate an assessment for failure to substantially comply with Section
228 of NIRC.

- ***This case has been thoroughly examined by no less than 2 examiners.

The request for reinvestigation and the subsequent investigation
conducted threw open the whole case and yielded more discovery of
irregularities in petitioner’s tax declarations and account keeping.

- ***Moreover, it is presumed that tax assessments are correctly and

legally made. The burden of assailing the same rests on the party
alleging irregularity. In the instant case, the burden is made more
onerous by the fact that re-investigation has already been conducted
and more deficiency taxes were uncovered.

- ***There was substantial compliance with Section 228 because

petitioner was able to protest the assessments intelligently, thereby
implying that it had actual knowledge of the factual and legal bases of
the assessments.

- The fact that petitioner was furnished the computation and brief
explanation of how the assessment for deficiency (quarterly income) tax
was arrived at, the requirement under Section 228 of NIRC is deemed
complied with. Petitioner was notified of the specific provision of laws
on which the assessment was based. This is evident in the Details of
Discrepancies wherein Sections 75 and 76 of NIRC were written.
(Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. vs CIR, CTA Case No. 6111, November 3,
2004)

- ***It is sufficient that petitioner was informed of the reason why the
said assessment was issued.

- ***. . . the defects were cured when petitioner ventilated his arguments
against the issuance of ------- through his earlier letter addressed to
-------- and when he filed his --------.

- *** We have held that a taxpayer's failure to file a petition for review
with the Court of Tax Appeals within the statutory period rendered the
disputed assessment final, executory and demandable, thereby
precluding it from interposing the defenses of legality or validity of the
assessment and prescription of the Government's right to assess.