- 7 -
to do so.
G. Hearings on Respondent’s Motion
This matter was called for hearing at the Court’s motions
sessions held in Washington, D.C., on September 25, 2002 and
October 23, 2002. Counsel for respondent appeared at the
hearings and offered argument and evidence in support of
respondent’s motion to dismiss, as supplemented. There was no
appearance by or on behalf of Bella Vista at either hearing, nor
did Bella Vista file any written statement pursuant to Rule
50(c).
Discussion
According to respondent, Bella Vista failed to show that
Robert Hogue is its duly appointed trustee. 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
proving the Court’s jurisdiction by affirmatively establishing
all 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011