- 6 -
petition as petitioner’s so-called contractor. The trust
instrument does not define the term “contractor”, and it does not
set forth the powers, duties, or responsibilities of a person who
holds that title.7 Nor is petitioner’s trustee a party to this
proceeding. According to the trust instrument, petitioner’s
trustee is Zola Sheenan, and the petition that was filed with the
Court by Mr. Jablonski makes no reference to Ms. Sheenan.
Petitioner has left us unpersuaded that we have jurisdiction
over its case. Thus, we shall grant respondent’s motion to
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.8 See AL Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-276; YMO Trust v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-275; BHC Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
6(...continued)
Mr. Jablonski to respondent’s counsel, that Mr. Jabonski signed
as “Trustee” (sic). However, the trust instrument does not name
Mr. Jablonski as trustee. The record as a whole does not support
a finding that Mr. Jablonski is petitioner’s trustee.
7 By contrast, the trust instrument provides explicitly that
“THE TRUSTEES shall hold all property of the Trust Organization
as joint tenants in fee simple and shall comprise the Board of
Trustees for conducting the affairs of the Trust Organization.”
The trust instrument provides further that “THE TRUSTEES shall
hold office and exercise collectively the control of the Trust
Organization property and affairs. All major actions and
decisions * * * on the part of the Trust Organization shall be
made by the Trustees acting unanimously”.
8 Petitioner has also failed to persuade us that it actually
existed on the date of the petition. We lack jurisdiction when a
petitioning trust is a nonexisting entity. See Patz v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 501 (1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011