Tarragon Trust - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:  This matter is before the Court           
          on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.                 
          Respondent maintains that the petition was not filed by a person            
          with authority to represent Tarragon Trust (Tarragon or                     
          petitioner).2  Petitioner opposes respondent’s motion.  As                  
          discussed in detail below, we shall grant respondent’s motion to            
          dismiss.                                                                    
          Procedural Background                                                       
               Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to Tarragon                   
          determining deficiencies in its Federal income taxes and                    
          additions to tax as follows:                                                
                         Additions to tax                                             
          Year    Deficiency    Sec. 6651(a)(1)    Sec. 6651(a)(2)                    
          1995     $65,975         $16,494              ---                           
          1996      61,390          15,347         To be determined.                  

          The Court subsequently received and filed a timely petition for             
          redetermination challenging the notice of deficiency.  The                  
          petition was signed “Paul Jablonski, Mng Dir”.                              



               2  Use of the terms “trust”, “trustee”, “trust instrument”,            
          and their derivatives is intended only for narrative convenience            
          to describe the form of the disputed transactions.  By our use of           
          such terms, we do not mean to suggest any conclusion concerning             
          the actual substance or characterization of the transactions for            
          tax purposes.                                                               
               Further, throughout the evidentiary record in this case,               
          references to petitioner appear as both “Tarragon” and “Taragon”.           
          In this opinion, we utilize the former spelling.  See Webster’s             
          Third New International Dictionary (1993).                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011