Universal Trust 06-15-90 - Page 12

                                                                               - 12 -- 12 -                                                                                

                    Mr. Chisum did not submit a motion or pleading identifying                                                                                             
                    himself as petitioner’s trustee until after the hearing of the                                                                                         
                    case at hand had been completed and the Court had pointed out the                                                                                      
                    inconsistency between Mr. Chisum’s documents and his claim that                                                                                        
                    he personally had been petitioner’s trustee since 1997.                                                                                                
                              Our jurisdiction generally depends upon the issuance of a                                                                                    
                    valid notice of deficiency and the filing of a timely petition.                                                                                        
                    See Rule 13; Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Mollet                                                                                      
                    v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 618, 623 (1984); Keeton v. Commissioner,                                                                                      
                    74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980).  Petitioner contests our jurisdiction on                                                                                      
                    the ground that no valid deficiency notice was issued.                                                                                                 
                    Respondent asserts we must dismiss because no valid petition was                                                                                       
                    filed.  For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with                                                                                              
                    petitioner and agree with respondent.11                                                                                                                
                              Petitioner’s Motion To Dismiss                                                                                                               
                              Section 6212(a) provides that, if the Secretary “determines”                                                                                 
                    that there is a deficiency in income tax, the Secretary is                                                                                             
                    authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer.  In                                                                                      
                    Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d at 1369-1370, the Court of Appeals                                                                                      

                              11 It might be argued, see Lee Enters., Inc. v.                                                                                              
                    Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-629, and cases cited therein, that                                                                                       
                    we have no occasion to reach the argument underlying petitioner’s                                                                                      
                    motion to dismiss because petitioner’s motion would be mooted by                                                                                       
                    our granting of respondent’s motion.  In the interest of                                                                                               
                    completeness, we first address petitioner’s motion.                                                                                                    

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011