B. Joe Rosa, Jr. An Accountancy Coproration - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Tax Board is not paid.  Cal. Rev. & Tax Code sec. 23302(c) (West            
          1992) provides that the Franchise Tax Board shall transmit the              
          names of suspended taxpayers to the California Secretary of State           
          and the certificate of the Secretary of State shall be prima                
          facie evidence of a taxpayer's suspension or forfeiture.                    
               In Condo v. Commissioner, supra, a case involving facts                
          virtually identical to those presented here, we analyzed                    
          California State law, including the statutory provisions cited              
          above, and concluded that, because the corporate taxpayer lacked            
          the capacity to both sue and defend against a suit in a State               
          court, it likewise did not possess the capacity to litigate in              
          this Court under Rule 60(c).  For similar holdings, see Vahlco              
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 428 (1991) (petition filed by                
          corporation suspended pursuant to Texas State law dismissed for             
          lack of jurisdiction); Padre Island Thunderbird, Inc. v.                    
          Commissioner, 72 T.C. 391 (1979) (petition filed by corporation             
          suspended pursuant to Illinois State law dismissed for lack of              
          jurisdiction).                                                              
               The record in this case establishes that petitioner's                  
          powers, rights, and privileges as a California corporation were             
          suspended by the California Secretary of State pursuant to Cal.             
          Rev. & Tax Code secs. 23301(b) and 23302(c) (West 1992) as of May           
          3, 1993.  Petitioner has offered no evidence that its corporate             
          powers have been reinstated.  Consistent with Condo v.                      
          Commissioner, supra, we will grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011