- 6 -
Mr. Siebert further argues that, in spite of the settlement
and final judgment, as the fiduciary who instituted this
proceeding, he is legally obligated and continues to be empowered
to pursue it to a conclusion. As a practical matter, Mr.
Siebert’s position is without reason because the trust under
which he derived authority has been voided ab initio. He no
longer possesses trust powers enabling him either to represent
Ms. Elton’s interest or to act in her stead.
Rule 60(c)2 provides that an individual’s capacity is based
on the law of domicile, and a fiduciary’s authority is determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction from which
authority is derived. Although Mr. Siebert has asserted that he
remains empowered to act and that, as a fiduciary, he is
compelled to complete the proceeding he instituted, he has not
referred us to any legal precedent under the laws of Texas or
Georgia that supports his position.
Mr. Siebert, in response to Ms. Elton’s statement in support
of her position, presented a detailed explanation of how Ms.
Elton became involved with him in the trust relationship. In
that regard, Mr. Siebert, by his explanation, seems to be
defending against Ms. Elton’s statement that she thought the
trust arrangement was an illegal scheme. In deciding who is the
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011