- 8 -
Residential because he was appointed successor trustee by Douglas
Carpa, the purported resigning “trustee”, on July 15, 1997.
Discussion
According to respondent, Rancho Residential 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 established that the taxpayer has the burden of
affirmatively establishing all facts giving rise to the Court’s
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
deficiency * * * or by and with the full descriptive name of the
fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of such person.”
See Rule 23(a)(1). Rule 60(c) states that the capacity of a
fiduciary or other representative to litigate in the Court “shall
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011