Mildred I. Criss, et al. - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          see Ohio R. Civ. P. 17(A).11                                                
               In the case at docket No. 9702-00, Criss Trust has the                 
          burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction, see Fehrs v.            
          Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Natl. Comm. to Secure                
          Justice in the Rosenberg Case v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 839             
          (1957), by establishing affirmatively all facts giving rise to              
          our jurisdiction, see Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v.                 
          Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960); Consol. Cos. v. Commis-              
          sioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929).  In order to meet that burden,           
          Criss Trust must provide evidence establishing who has the                  
          authority to act on its behalf in the proceeding at docket No.              
          9702-00.  See Natl. Comm. to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case           
          v. Commissioner, supra at 839-840; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v.                
          Commissioner, 22 B.T.A. 686, 700 (1931).                                    
               On the instant record, we find that Criss Trust has failed             
          to establish who has the authority to act on its behalf in the              


               11Ohio R. Civ. P. 17(A) provides in pertinent part:                    
               RULE 17.  Parties plaintiff and defendant; capacity                    
                    (A) Real party in interest.  Every action shall be                
               prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.                  
               An executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, trustee                  
               of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name                
               a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or                
               a party authorized by statute may sue in his name as                   
               such representative without joining with him the party                 
               for whose benefit the action is brought. * * * [Empha-                 
               sis added.]                                                            






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