- 2 -- 2 -
deficiency in petitioner’s tax, as required by section 62122 and
Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81
T.C. 855 (1983). Respondent asserts we must dismiss because
Jimmy C. Chisum (Mr. Chisum), the person who signed the petition,
has not established his capacity to act on behalf of petitioner,
as required by Rule 60.3
We will deny petitioner’s motion and grant respondent’s
motion for the reasons set forth below.
2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for 1993, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
3 We note that Mr. Chisum and a myriad of purported “trusts”
with which he has claimed to be connected are well known to this
Court. We have dismissed several cases that Mr. Chisum attempted
to bring in this Court (including a case concerning petitioner’s
income taxes for 1994 and 1995) on the ground asserted by
respondent in the case at hand. See Universal Trust 06-15-90 v.
Commissioner, docket No. 18438-99; Banana Moon Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-73; Jeff Burger Prods., LLC v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-72 (dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because Mr. Chisum, who claimed to be “trustee” of
“trust” acting as taxpayer’s tax matters partner, did not have
capacity to act on behalf of that “trust”); Bantam Domestic Trust
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-63; Photo Art Mktg. Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-57, see also Lipari v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-280 (sec. 6673 penalty imposed on
taxpayers who claimed they were unable to obtain records from
Mr. Chisum, “trustee” of their “trust”); George v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-381 (“trust” of which Mr. Chisum was “trustee”
was a sham, and payments received by that “trust” were income of
osteopathic physician who performed services that generated the
income).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011