- 2 -
Wayne Hagendorf, for petitioner.
David R. JoJola and Igor S. Drabkin, for respondent.
OPINION
LARO, Judge: Respondent moves the Court to dismiss this
case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that petitioner lacked the
capacity to file the subject petition with the Court because
petitioner’s corporate powers, rights, and privileges were under
suspension when the petition was filed. Petitioner objects
thereto, arguing primarily that: (1) Its suspension was
improper, and (2) the fact that its status was recently revived
means that it may maintain this action. Petitioner also argues
that respondent has waived the right to assert the jurisdictional
issue.
We shall grant respondent's motion. Unless otherwise
indicated, section references are to the applicable provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background
David Dung Le, a.k.a David Van Le, incorporated petitioner
under the laws of the State of California on or about December
22, 1982, using the name Dung Van Le, a medical corporation. On
April 1, 1991, pursuant to applicable State law, see Cal. Rev. &
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011