-4-
ground that under the laws of the State of Colorado petitioner
does not have the capacity to engage in litigation in the Court.3
See Rule 60(c).
Although respondent does not dispute petitioner’s contention
that under the laws of the State of Colorado petitioner “is not
barred from commencing this proceeding simply because its corpo-
rate status has been dissolved”, we do. In advancing that
contention, petitioner relies on Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 7-114-
105(2)(e) (1999), which was in effect when petitioner claims it
dissolved in 1995 and when petitioner filed the petition in this
3We also find on the record before us that petitioner is not
interested in prosecuting, and has thus far failed to prosecute,
this case in order to attempt to obtain the only remedy available
to it under sec. 7428, i.e., a declaration with respect to
petitioner’s continuing qualification as an organization de-
scribed in sec. 501(c)(3). We further find on that record that
petitioner is not interested in pursuing its request in the
petition “that this Court issue a declaratory judgment declaring
that Petitioner is recognized as an organization described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Code for the years in issue [1990
through 1994]”. Instead, petitioner asks this Court, as it did
in petitioner’s motion to dismiss filed on Feb. 10, 2000 (peti-
tioner’s Feb. 10, 2000 motion to dismiss), to order respondent to
annul or withdraw respondent’s notice of revocation on the ground
that respondent abused respondent’s discretion in issuing that
notice. According to petitioner, if we were to issue an order
“requiring Respondent’s annulment of Petitioner’s revocation
letter, Petitioner will move to dismiss its own Petition.”
Assuming arguendo that we were not required to dismiss this case
for lack of jurisdiction, what we stated in the Court’s Order
dated Apr. 17, 2000, denying petitioner’s Feb. 10, 2000 motion to
dismiss, would pertain here: “Such summary determination [sought
by petitioner] cannot be made on the record. The remedy avail-
able to petitioner in the event that respondent abused his
discretion in issuing the notice of revocation is a declaratory
judgment as sought in the original petition.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011