Hanna & Associates, P.C. - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               On May 27, 1997, Charles F. Daily, Jr., as counsel for                 
          petitioner, filed a petition with this Court in the name of                 
          petitioner.                                                                 
               On June 30, 1997, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for             
          lack of jurisdiction on the ground that, because petitioner was             
          dissolved more than 3 years prior to the filing of the petition             
          herein, under Texas State law petitioner now lacks capacity to              
          invoke this Court's jurisdiction.  On July 22, 1997, petitioner             
          filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss on the                 
          ground that the notice of deficiency was invalid, because it was            
          issued more than 3 years after the deadline of the dissolution of           
          the corporation.                                                            
               Respondent's motion was calendared for hearing in San                  
          Antonio, Texas.  Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing             
          and presented arguments on the pending motion.  Petitioner's                
          attorney did not appear for the hearing, nor were any written               
          statements of petitioner's position filed with the Court as                 
          provided for pursuant to Rule 50(c).                                        
          Discussion                                                                  
          Rule 60(c) states that the capacity of a corporation to                     
          engage in litigation in this Court shall be determined by the law           
          under which the corporation was organized.  Brannon's of Shawnee,           
          Inc. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 108, 111 (1978); Condo v.                     
          Commissioner, 69 T.C. 149, 151 (1977); Great Falls Bonding                  
          Agency, Inc. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 304, 305 (1974).  Because             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011