- 15 -- 15 -
According to respondent, Mr. Chisum has not shown that, when
he signed the petition, he was petitioner’s trustee or otherwise
had capacity to commence litigation on behalf of petitioner.
Respondent asserts that as a result no valid petition has been
filed and we must dismiss the case at hand for lack of
jurisdiction.
Mr. Chisum counters that he was petitioner’s trustee when he
signed the petition and that as trustee he had authority to act
for petitioner under State law. Accordingly, Mr. Chisum claims
that a valid petition was filed in the case at hand.
We agree with respondent.
We first note that petitioner has the burden of proving we
have jurisdiction by establishing affirmatively all facts giving
rise to our jurisdiction. See Patz Trust v. Commissioner, 69
T.C. 497, 503 (1977); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348
(1975); Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35
T.C. 177, 180 (1960); National Comm. To Secure Justice v.
Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 838-839 (1957); Consolidated Cos.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 651-652 (1929). Of course,
a timely filed petition is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction.
See Rule 13(c); Pyo v. Commissioner, supra at 632; Mollet v.
Commissioner, supra at 623; Keeton v. Commissioner, supra at 379.
Furthermore, it is well settled that unless the petition is filed
by the taxpayer, or by someone lawfully authorized to act on the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011