- 6 -
petition, but not in the trust instrument, as petitioner’s so-
called managing director. The trust instrument does not define
the term “managing director”, and it does not set forth the
powers, duties, or responsibilities of a person who holds that
title.6 Nor is petitioner’s trustee a party to this proceeding.
According to the trust instrument, petitioner’s trustee is Jerald
Tobin, and the petition that was filed with the Court by Mr.
Jablonski makes no reference to Mr. Tobin.
Petitioner has left us unpersuaded that we have jurisdiction
over its case. Thus, we shall grant respondent’s motion to
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.7 See AL Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-276; YMO Trust v. Commissioner,
6 By contrast, the trust instrument provides explicitly that
“THE TRUSTEES shall hold all property of the Trust Organization
as joint tenants in fee simple and shall comprise the Board of
Trustees for conducting the affairs of the Trust Organization.”
The trust instrument provides further that “THE TRUSTEES shall
hold office and exercise collectively the control of the Trust
Organization property and affairs. All major actions and
decisions * * * on the part of the Trust Organization shall be
made by the Trustees acting unanimously”.
We also note that the record contains a document dated Apr.
28, 1994, entitled “MINUTES OF THE INITIAL TRUSTEE MEETING OF BHC
TRUST.” This document provides that the managing director is
authorized to “conduct day to day routine business”. This
document provides further that the managing director must receive
board approval for any important matter; e.g., a legal
determination.
7 Petitioner has also failed to persuade us that it actually
existed on the date of the petition. We lack jurisdiction when a
petitioning trust is a nonexisting entity. See Patz v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 501 (1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011