Hanna & Associates, P.C. - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          petitioner was organized in the State of Texas, we look to the              
          law of that State to determine whether petitioner possesses the             
          requisite capacity to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.                     
          Petitioner's capacity to engage in litigation is prescribed                 
          by Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 7.12 (West 1994), which provides           
          that a dissolved Texas corporation shall continue its corporate             
          existence for a period of 3 years from the date of the                      
          dissolution, for the purpose of prosecuting or defending in its             
          corporate name any action or proceeding brought by or against it.           
          In applying Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 7.12 ( West 1994)                 
          to the facts presented, we agree with respondent that the cause             
          of action underlying this proceeding was not commenced within 3             
          years of the date that petitioner was dissolved.  The record                
          shows that petitioner dissolved on February 24, 1994.  It is                
          clear that under Texas law petitioner's existence as extended by            
          statute terminated on February 24, 1997, i.e., 3 years after its            
          dissolution.  As of that date it ceased to exist and lacked                 
          capacity to institute any legal proceeding.  Great Falls Bonding            
          Agency Inc., v. Commissioner, supra; Comfort Home Builders, Inc.            
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-225.  Thus, a petition filed               
          with this Court in petitioner's name on May 27, 1997, more than 3           
          years after its dissolution, cannot be entertained.                         
          Moreover, we note that petitioner has not articulated a                     
          sound argument in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss              
          for lack of jurisdiction.  Rather, petitioner maintains that                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011