- 5 -
9. Arizona law provides that the trustee has the
capacity to institute court proceedings on behalf of
the trust. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. � 14-7233 C. 25.
* * * * * * *
13. To date, petitioner has not provided respon-
dent with any trust document or any other sort of
documentary evidence regarding who was the first ap-
pointed trustee of the petitioner trust. Without the
trust document, it is impossible to determine whether
subsequent appointments of successor trustees are legal
and/or valid.
14. There is absolutely no evidence from which
the Court can adduce that the documents referred to
* * * above [the two Forms 56 and the two documents
entitled “ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRUST BY THE TRUSTEE” that
were attached to the Form 2848 filed by petitioner],
create a legal assignment to either James R. Slagle
and/or Russell Buchanan as trustees. These documents
appear to be self-serving and created solely in re-
sponse to respondent’s audit examination.
15. Petitioner has provided no evidence that said
assignments are valid or authorized under the terms of
the trust indenture (assuming one exists).
16. * * * petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that either James R. Slagle or Russell Buchanan
were [sic] legally appointed as trustees and therefore,
[is] authorized to act on behalf of the petitioner
trust and bring the instant case before this Court.
See T.C. Rule 60(c).
Petitioner filed a notice of objection to respondent’s
motion in which it asks the Court to deny that motion. That
notice of objection asserts in pertinent part:
1. On October 7, 1998, respondent sent a Notice
of Deficiency to petitioner. In that Notice of Defi-
ciency, respondent identified James R. Slagle & Russell
W. Buchanan as the Trustees for petitioner, BULL HOLD-
INGS, A Trust.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011