- 14 -
limitations had expired before the powers were restored. The
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed both of the
District Court’s holdings. As to the latter holding that the
plaintiff’s untimely revival did not give it the capacity to sue,
the Court of Appeals concluded that California law does not allow
the corporate reinstatement to validate retroactively the
plaintiff’s earlier filing. The expiration of the period of
limitations before plaintiff’s suspension was lifted acted as a
bar to the plaintiff’s maintaining the antitrust action.
We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition
for lack of jurisdiction. In so doing, we are mindful that this
Court has held repeatedly that Rule 60(a) allows a petition filed
timely by an improper party to be continued in the name of the
proper party. See, e.g., Gray v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 639, 648
(1980); Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829, 832 (1977); Brooks v.
Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-715 (1975); see also Rule 60(a),
which provides:
A case timely brought shall not be dismissed on the
ground that it is not properly brought on behalf of a
party until a reasonable time has been allowed after
objection for ratification by such party of the
bringing of the case; and such ratification shall have
the same effect as if the case had been properly
brought by such party.
Those cases are not pertinent to our decision herein. In
contrast to the taxpayers in those cases, petitioner did not have
the requisite capacity to bring an action in this Court when the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011