- 19 -
stead of the decedent. And if our jurisdiction continues,
then there must be a procedural means to bring the case to a
close.
In the event that no representative of a decedent comes forward
to prosecute the decedent's case before this Court, the
procedural means for bringing the case to a close is respondent's
filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute.
Nordstrom v. Commissioner, supra; see also Wyler v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-285. Consequently, if this Court were to hold
that the aforementioned substitution of Mr. Dornbrock's estate
and Mrs. Dornbrock as personal representative of that estate was
improper, respondent would then be in the position to file a
motion to dismiss this case as to Mr. Dornbrock for failure to
properly prosecute. If this Court were to grant such a motion,
Mrs. Dornbrock and the estate of her deceased husband would be in
the same position she finds herself in at this time because
respondent could assess the taxes based upon an order of
dismissal and decision. This Court does not believe that Mrs.
Dornbrock desires such an inevitable result in this case.
Mrs. Dornbrock contends that the substitution of parties in
this matter was improper or invalid because her husband's estate
had been closed some 5 years prior to the substitution. Her
argument in this regard is misplaced. The Supreme Court of
Michigan has held:
probate and closing of an estate should not bar an action
that may yet, within the applicable statute of limitation,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011