- 5 -
documentary evidence regarding who was the first ap-
pointed trustee of the petitioner trust. Without the
trust document, it is impossible to determine whether
subsequent appointments of successor trustees are legal
and/or valid.
14. There is absolutely no evidence from which
the Court can adduce that the documents referred to
* * * above [the two Forms 56 and the two documents
entitled “ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRUST BY THE TRUSTEE” that
were attached to the Form 2848 filed by petitioner],
create a legal assignment to either James R. Slagle
and/or Russell Buchanan as trustees. These documents
appear to be self-serving and created solely in re-
sponse to respondent’s audit examination.
15. Petitioner has provided no evidence that said
assignments are valid or authorized under the terms of
the trust indenture (assuming one exists).
16. * * * petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that either James R. Slagle or Russell Buchanan were
[sic] legally appointed as trustees and therefore, [is]
authorized to act on behalf of the petitioner trust and
bring the instant case before this Court. See T.C.
Rule 60(c).
Petitioner filed a notice of objection to respondent’s
motion in which it asks the Court to deny that motion. That
notice of objection asserts in pertinent part:
1. On October 7, 1998, respondent sent a Notice
of Deficiency to petitioner. In that Notice of Defi-
ciency, respondent identified James R. Slagle & Russell
W. Buchanan as the Trustees for petitioner, Legal-Ease,
A Trust.
2. Petitioner has filed the appropriate Form 56
in which James R. Slagle and Russell W. Buchanan have
identified themselves as trustees of the said trust and
attached as supporting documentation the Acceptance of
the Trust by the Trustee. These documents show that
each was appointed as a trustee of Legal-Ease, A Trust,
and that each signed acknowledging their acceptance of
said appointment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011