- 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 thePage: 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