David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

         the Board nothing from April 15, 1993, through November 15, 1995.            
         The Statement refers only to petitioner’s 1993 tax year and does             
         not otherwise indicate whether petitioner owed the Board any                 
         amount for prior years.  On the basis of the two certificates, we            
         conclude that petitioner was “suspended” on the date that Mr.                
         Hagendorf filed a petition with this Court on its behalf and at              
         all times through September 29, 1999, the date on which the 90-              
         day period under section 6213(a) expired.  Accordingly, we hold              
         that petitioner lacked the capacity under California law to                  
         validate that petition as a legal filing and that it lacked the              
         authority to cause Mr. Hagendorf to file a valid petition on its             
         behalf.  Cf. Rule 41(a) (“No amendment [to a pleading] shall be              
         allowed after expiration of the time for filing the petition * *             
         * which would involve conferring jurisdiction on the Court over a            
         matter which otherwise would not come within its jurisdiction                
         under the petition as then on file.”).                                       
              Nor are we persuaded by petitioner’s argument that the                  
         current reinstatement of its powers as of February 28, 2000,                 
         means that it can continue to litigate this case.  In Condo v.               
         Commissioner, 69 T.C. 149, 151 (1977), we dismissed the case for             
         lack of jurisdiction because the corporate taxpayer did not have             
         the capacity to litigate under Rule 60(a).  The taxpayer, like               
         petitioner, was a California corporation under suspension due to             
         its failure to pay State income/franchise tax.  We noted with                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011