- 14 -
challenges the validity of all of the documents submitted by Mr.
Adorno and contends that these documents do not demonstrate Mr.
Adorno’s current representative capacity as trustee. Mr. Adorno
appeared pro se, purportedly on behalf of Adorno Asset. Offering
no evidence to supplement the previously submitted documents, he
asserted that “the minutes elected me as director” and “I stand
by my stipulations and affidavits that are in the Court’s [sic]”.
H. Post-Hearing Memorandum Briefs
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed the
parties to file memorandum briefs in support of their respective
positions. Respondent complied with this order, but Mr. Adorno
failed to do so.
Discussion
According to respondent, Adorno Asset failed to show that
Mr. Adorno is a proper party authorized to act on its behalf.
Respondent asserts that as a result, no valid petition has been
filed and the Court must dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction. We agree.
It is well settled that the taxpayer has the burden of
affirmatively establishing all of the 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011