- 10 -
the underlying facts related to jurisdictional question
raised in the Motion to Dismiss are inextricably inter-
twined with the facts going to the merits of the Peti-
tion pending in this Court. Therefore, the only course
available to this Court is to defer consideration of
the jurisdictional claims to the trial on the merits.
Careau Group v. United Farm Workers [of Am.], 940 F.2d
1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1991). See also Rosales v. United
States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A * * *
[district] court may hear evidence and make findings of
fact necessary to rule on the subject matter jurisdic-
tion question prior to trial, if the jurisdictional
facts are not intertwined with the merits.” (Emphasis
added))
Given the controlling law for this issue, it would
be facially an abuse of discretion to deny the substi-
tution of fiduciary when the initial filing from the
Respondent objected to the Petition on the grounds that
this Court lacked jurisdiction. Rule 60(a)(1), Rules
of Practice and Procedure, United States Tax Court does
not permit the Respondent to continue his jurisdic-
tional challenge, when the substitution of the fidu-
ciary answers all of the objections originally made in
the Motion to Dismiss. The objection was that an agent
for the Trustee cannot proceed in this matter. An
agent for the Trustee is no longer proceeding. One of
the Co-Trustees is proceeding in his own name. The
fact that the Petitioners changed trustees to answer
the objection is not a matter that this Court can
concern itself with, unless the presiding judge is
prepared to expose himself/herself, the Respondent and
the Respondent’s counsel to personal liability.
The Court held a hearing on respondent’s motion and peti-
tioners’ motion. At that hearing, Jimmy C. Chisum (Mr. Chisum)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011