- 9 -
Furthermore, 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)(1) 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 shows that California
State law is controlling in this case.
Under California law, a trustee is authorized to commence
litigation on behalf of a trust. Cal. Prob. Code sec. 16249
(West Supp. 2002). However, Acme has failed to provide the Court
with the documentary evidence necessary to support its contention
that Robert Hogue was vested with authority to institute this
action on its behalf. As it pertains to the question of Robert
Hogue’s status as a duly appointed trustee of Acme, the record in
this case is, at best, muddled.
As previously discussed, Acme presented the Court with two
versions of the purported trust instrument. The first document,
dated January 1, 1994, identifies E.E. Salera D.C. as “creator”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011