Strayer
J.
A
:
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
appeal
should
be
dismissed.
The
appellant
has
argued
that
the
learned
Tax
Court
Judge
made
an
error
of
law
in
concluding
that
he
had
the
authority
to
allow
the
respondent
to
proceed
with
his
appeal
in
that
Court
without
paying
his
filing
fees
required
by
Rule
176
of
the
Tax
Court
Rules.
We
agree
with
the
Tax
Court
Judge
that
he
had
such
authority
under
Rule
9
which
provides
that:
9.
The
Court
may,
only
where
and
as
necessary
in
the
interests
of
justice,
dispense
with
compliance
with
any
rule
at
any
time.
In
our
view
the
requirement
to
pay
a
filing
fee
is
a
procedural
matter
prescribed
by
a
rule
of
the
Tax
Court,
and
therefore
it
may
be
waived
pursuant
to
those
rules.
Whether
other
Courts
have
specific
rules
for
in
forma
pauperis
proceedings
does
not
assist
in
interpreting
the
Tax
Court
Rules
which
are
self-contained.
Nor
need
we
go
in
search
of
an
ancient
statutory
or
common
law
right
to
bring
such
proceedings.
The
appellant
also
argues
that
the
Tax
Court
Judge
erred
in
fact
in
finding
that
the
respondent
was
without
means
to
pay
the
filing
fee.
The
learned
judge,
after
due
consideration
of
the
evidence,
accepted
the
respondent’s
testimony
to
this
effect
and
we
can
see
no
“palpable
or
overriding”
error
of
fact
that
would
entitle
us
to
intervene.
We
would
only
add
that
we
assume
that
in
the
exercise
of
his
discretion
the
Tax
Court
Judge
considered,
among
other
factors,
whether
the
appeal
by
the
respondent
in
the
Tax
Court
has
any
possible
merit.
This
would
of
course
be
a
proper
matter
for
consideration
in
any
determination
as
to
whether
the
rule
should
be
waived.
As
no
objection
has
been
taken
to
the
discretionary
decision
of
the
judge
on
this
ground,
it
is
unnecessary
for
us
to
consider
it
further.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content