- 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, wePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011