- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011