- 14 -
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 Business 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.
837, 838-839 (1957). 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) requires that a case be brought “by and in the
name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the
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