- 3 -
petitioner that we might dismiss its case if it did not comply
fully with our order.
On July 17, 2000, petitioner filed its response with the
Court. The response attached a copy of a trust instrument for
petitioner dated May 17, 1994, but did not list either the name
of petitioner’s trustee or petitioner’s assets or liabilities as
of the date of the response. Nor did the response set forth
petitioner’s position as to respondent’s motion. Petitioner
prayed in the response that the Court give it until July 25,
2000, to comply with our Order. We granted petitioner’s prayer,
ordering it to file with the Court a supplement to its response
by July 26, 2000.4 Petitioner never filed such a supplement with
the Court, and it never requested a further extension of time in
order to do so. Respondent filed with the Court on August 2,
2000, a reply to petitioner’s response.
We must decide whether to grant respondent’s motion. We are
a legislatively created (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our
jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v.
Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner,
94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529
(1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown
4 In addition to our regular service of process, we
telephoned petitioner’s counsel on July 24, 2000, to inform them
of this extension.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011