- 13 -
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
be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction from
which such person's authority is derived.”
Robert Hogue contends that he was appointed the trustee for
Residential Management in accordance with paragraph Eighth of the
altered trust instrument. That paragraph provides, in pertinent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011