-13-
he is an interested party under section 1.7476-1(b)(5), Income
Tax Regs., relating to plan terminations.
We agree with respondent Commissioner.
(1) Preliminary Comments
Firstly, it is well settled that this Court can proceed in a
case only if we have jurisdiction and that any party, or the
Court sua sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time, even
after the case has been tried and briefed. Normac, Inc. & Normac
International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 146-147 (1988); Kahle
v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1063 n.3 (1987), and cases cited
therein. We have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction and
“whenever it appears that this Court may not have jurisdiction to
entertain the proceeding that question must be decided.”
Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177,
179 (1960); 508 Clinton Street Corp. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
352, 353 n.2 (1987).
Where this Court’s jurisdiction is duly challenged, the
jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown. Wheeler’s Peachtree
Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 180; Louisiana Naval
Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 18 B.T.A. 533, 536-537 (1929).
In particular, petitioner has the burden of proving that the
jurisdictional requirements of section 7476 have been met. Rule
217(c)(1)(A); Halliburton Co. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 88, 94
(1992); BBS Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1118, 1120-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011