- 7 -
In this case Petitioners concede that they have
not authorized someone to act on their behalf, and have
not affirmatively established all required facts giving
rise to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.
Therefore, the Tax Court lacks the required
requisite jurisdiction and must deal with this issue
regardless of whether the issue is raised by either
party. * * *
With respect to Congo Trust, petitioner has failed to
establish that there is a proper party before the Court, and, for
that reason, we shall dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Photo Art Mktg. Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-57.
With respect to Caralan Trust, C E Shirley Trust, and Alexion
Trust, in reliance on the motion (and on our earlier conclusion
that counsel had established jurisdiction), we shall substitute
Ivan Oviedo, Joseph Shirley, and Curtis Shirley, respectively, as
party and change caption. In reliance on the statement in the
motion that counsel is informed that the trustees do not wish to
pursue this matter further, we shall consider that a capitulation
by each petitioner trustee to respondent’s position in his case.
Respondent’s position is that the income of the Caralan Trust and
Alexion Trust is taxable to the J. Shirleys, and the income of
the C E Shirley Trust and Congo Trust is taxable to the C.
Shirleys. On brief, respondent states that, if the Court so
finds, then respondent would concede that there are no
deficiencies in tax or section 6662(a) penalties due from any of
the trusts. Since we find, in essence, as respondent has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011