- 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