- 9 -
It is well settled that the taxpayer has the burden of
proving the Court’s 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); Natl. Comm. To Secure
Justice v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 838-839 (1957). Moreover,
unless the petition is filed by the taxpayer, or by someone
lawfully authorized to act on the 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. As previously mentioned, the
parties agree that Virginia law is controlling in this case.
Based on our review of Virginia law, we conclude that a
trustee generally is a necessary party in an action brought on
behalf of a trust. Accord Mendenhall v. Douglas L. Cooper, Inc.,
387 S.E.2d 468 (Va. 1990); Raney v. Four Thirty Seven Land Co.,
357 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Va. 1987); cf. Walt Robbins, Inc. v. Damon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011