- 9 -
The respective governing trust documents pertaining to
petitioners suggest that each petitioner was organized as a trust
under the laws of the State of Nevada. However, in petitioners’
response to respondent’s motion and at the hearing on that
motion, Mr. Chisum asserted that the administration of each
petitioner trust is governed by the laws of the State of Arizona
and that the exclusive jurisdiction in determining the validity
of the trust and of the trustee is in the Superior Court of the
State of Arizona.
Assuming arguendo, as petitioners claim, that each peti-
tioner is a trust, the administration of which is subject to the
laws of the State of Arizona, under Arizona law, see Rule 60(c),
a trustee has the power to commence litigation on behalf of a
trust.3 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 14-7233.C.25. (West
1995). In the instant case, each petitioner has the burden of
proving that this Court has jurisdiction, see Fehrs v. Commis-
sioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); National Comm. to Secure Justice
3Assuming arguendo, as the respective governing trust
documents pertaining to petitioners suggest, that each petitioner
is a trust, the administration of which is subject to the laws of
the State of Nevada, under Nevada law, see Rule 60(c), a trustee
has the power to commence litigation on behalf of a trust if the
trust instrument so provides. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. secs.
163.260 and 163.375 (Michie 1993). The respective governing
trust documents pertaining to petitioners stated in pertinent
part that the board of trustees of each petitioner trust was to
have “all of the powers of Trustees under the Anglo-Saxon Common
Law, as well as those specified under the laws of the State of
Nevada.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011