- 8 -
Main-Hammond Land Trust v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 942 (1951),
affd. on other grounds 200 F.2d 308 (6th Cir. 1952). In the same
vein, we have retained jurisdiction over petitions filed while a
trust was active but had terminated after the petition was filed.
See Patz Trust v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497 (1977); Main-Hammond
Land Trust v. Commissioner, supra. The principles of these
earlier opinions support our holding that while we retain
jurisdiction over petitions filed when a trust was active even
though subsequently voided, the trustee of a terminated or voided
trust should not be preferred to the true party in interest where
the trust has terminated or been voided and the subject of the
trust returned to the settlor. In this situation, it is
appropriate to favor the settlor over the trustee.
Mr. Siebert did cite some cases3 in support of his position
that he is and should continue as the taxpayer in this proceeding
and that Ms. Elton should not be allowed to be substituted as the
party petitioner herein. Those cases, however, are inapposite
because they involve the question of who is obligated to report
income and generally turn on factors such as ownership and title
of income-producing property. Here, no one has questioned Mr.
Siebert’s ability to file the petition commencing this case. The
3 See Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 355 (1939); Edward G.
Swartz, Inc. v. Commissioner, 25 B.T.A. 1065 (1932), affd. 69
F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1934); Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. v.
United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 289, 10 F. Supp. 591 (1935).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011