Universal Trust 06-15-90 - Page 16

                                                                               - 16 -- 16 -                                                                                

                    taxpayer’s behalf, we are without jurisdiction.  See Fehrs v.                                                                                          
                    Commissioner, supra at 348.                                                                                                                            
                              Rule 60(a) requires that a case be brought “by and in the                                                                                    
                    name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the                                                                                        
                    deficiency * * * or by and with the full descriptive name of the                                                                                       
                    fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of such person.”                                                                                      
                    Rule 60(c) states that the capacity of a fiduciary or other                                                                                            
                    representative to litigate in the Court shall be determined in                                                                                         
                    accordance with the law of the jurisdiction from which such                                                                                            
                    person’s authority is derived.                                                                                                                         
                              The record assembled by Mr. Chisum to support his authority                                                                                  
                    to institute this case on behalf of petitioner is riddled with                                                                                         
                    gaps and inconsistencies and is difficult to understand.  For                                                                                          
                    example, it is not even clear what State’s law we should apply to                                                                                      
                    determine Mr. Chisum’s capacity.  Mr. Chisum claims that                                                                                               
                    California law governs.  However, Mr. Chisum has also stated that                                                                                      
                    “I function from Arizona”, and the documents he has filed make                                                                                         
                    some reference to Arizona law.  Moreover, petitioner’s original                                                                                        
                    indenture states that petitioner was domiciled in Nevada and that                                                                                      
                    Nevada law governs, while the revised indenture states that                                                                                            
                    petitioner was domiciled in Delaware and that Delaware law                                                                                             
                    governs.  Although Mr. Chisum has asserted that petitioner did                                                                                         
                    business in California during the year in issue, he has not                                                                                            
                    offered any explanation why California law is the relevant law,                                                                                        

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011