- 5 -
liability to respondent as to the 1996 tax year. Mr. Siebert
contends, however, that he is the proper party petitioner, no tax
is owed, and that the merits of the case should be pursued by
means of a trial. With that backdrop, we must decide whether Mr.
Siebert should remain the party petitioner and, if not, whether
Ms. Elton should be substituted for Mr. Siebert and whether Mr.
Robertson should be permitted to enter his appearance on behalf
of Ms. Elton.
Discussion
No question has been raised as to whether the petition filed
by Mr. Siebert, as trustee, in response to the notice of
deficiency sent to Ms. Elton, was timely or valid, or whether Mr.
Siebert was authorized to file the petition, either individually
or on Ms. Elton’s behalf. The controversy is focused on who is
the proper party to prosecute this matter following the voiding
of the trust.1 Mr. Siebert argues that he is the proper taxpayer
and petitioner, while Ms. Elton apparently contends that Mr.
Siebert has simply been the fiduciary. The question we must
answer, however, is the same; i.e., whether Mr. Siebert has
capacity to prosecute this proceeding either as the taxpayer or
as a fiduciary.
1 Even if Mr. Siebert had not been authorized to file the
petition, there is a limited line of cases where ratification of
imperfect petitions has been permitted. See Holt v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829 (1977); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C.
709 (1975); Carstenson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 542 (1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011