florida legal-concepts
How to address a Conclusory Statement
<p>I understand that a <strong><a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/conclusory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">conclusory statement</a></strong> consists of, or relates to, a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered.</p>
<p>UPDATE: Assume that Bob worked in the US in 2021 and had a duty to pay Federal income tax and failed to do so.</p>
<p>For example, as a working American, Bob has a duty to file and pay Federal income tax.</p>
<p>An IRS investigator sends a letter to Bob indicating Bob did not file and pay his 2021 federal income tax.  The investigator demands a timely written response.  The investigator asks Bob if he will file 2021 and any delinquent taxes immediately with the required penalty. Bob replies to the investigator with:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I [Bob] have been in the work force for 35+ years and filed / paid taxes many
times.  <strong>Thus, I have not violated relevant tax law</strong> and will not agree
to pay any penalty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bob's claim of not violating law, relies on past performance of filing taxes.  As I understand it: Bob has a duty to file and pay taxes for each and every working year and it is obvious that the years prior to the year in question are irrelevant.  I would like to understand (preferably from legal practitioners that have effectively used this term) if said claim is conclusory?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I [Bob] have been in the work force for 35+ years and filed / paid
taxes many times. Thus, I have not violated relevant tax law and will
not agree to pay any penalty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a conclusory statement. It is an irrelevant statement.</p>
<p>Example 1: &quot;Bob was not required to file a 2021 tax return. Therefore no offence has been committed.&quot;. This is conclusory because it offers a conclusion without explaining how it was reached (why was Bob not required to file a 2021 tax return?).</p>
<p>Example 2: &quot;Bob filed his 2020 tax return. Therefore no offence has been committed&quot;. This is irrelevant because the alleged offence relates to 2021, not 2020.</p>
<p>You can work out the difference by imagining what would happen if Bob substantiated his claims. If Bob submits evidence to show that he has been &quot;in the work force for 35+ years and filed / paid taxes many times&quot;, it will make no difference to his case because it is irrelevant (unless he can also show that he filed and paid in relation to 2021 specifically). A conclusory statement on the other hand is capable of being effective if it is backed up by supporting evidence and arguments. In example 1 above, if Bob submits evidence to show that he was not required to file in 2021, then his conclusion will be effective.</p>
<p>Note: the phrase &quot;conclusory statement&quot; <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22conclusory+statement%22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">does not appear to be a commonly used one</a>, returning only 171,000 results on Google. I've personally not come across it (<a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a>), but perhaps it is more common elsewhere.</p>

<p>In the United States, the phrase &quot;conclusory statement&quot; most typically refers to a conclusion presented without any factual allegations in support.</p>
<p>It most frequently comes up in the context of a Rule 12(B)(6) or a Rule 12(C) motion. When deciding those motions, courts assume that allegations are true but make no assumptions about the truth of conclusions. It therefore becomes important to distinguish between a factual allegation and a legal conclusion.</p>
<p>So imagine a negligence lawsuit against a driver who rear-ended the plaintiff. The complaint might be set up in different ways. It could say nothing more than:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff.</li>
<li>Defendant breached that duty.</li>
<li>Plaintiff suffered damages.</li>
<li>Those damages were caused by Defendant's breach.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Those allegations would be conclusory, as they reach legal conclusions about the parties' rights and responsibilities but offer no explanation for how those conclusions were reached.</p>
<p>Or the complaint could say:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Defendant had a duty to other drivers to operate her car safely.</li>
<li>Defendant breached that duty by driving too close to Plaintiff.</li>
<li>Plaintiff suffered damages in the form of medical bills and damage to her property.</li>
<li>Those damages were caused by Defendant's failure to drive her car carefully.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>These allegations are not conclusory, because they lay out facts that could support the legal conclusions.</p>
<p>In your case, Bob is relying on his previous payment of taxes as evidence that he has not violated the law. Proving that Bob made payments previously won't necessarily prove that he hasn't violated tax law, but it might. It is therefore weak evidence, but I would disagree with your characterization of the statement as &quot;conclusory.&quot;</p>
