- 24 -
In the motions to dismiss the cases filed on behalf of the
Pago and McKenzie Trusts, respondent alleges that both trusts
have failed to show that: (1) Mr. Norton and Mr. Boatright were
acting as trustees on January 13, 2003, when the petitions were
filed; (2) Mr. Norton and Mr. Boatright have ever been
represented by Mr. Izen in connection with the filing of the
petitions; and (3) Mr. Norton and Mr. Boatright authorized Mr.
Izen to file the petitions on behalf of the trusts. As a result,
respondent argues, the petitions were not filed by the proper
party, and we should dismiss the trusts’ petitions for lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioners argue that by signing Forms 56 and 2848, Mr.
Norton and Mr. Boatright identified themselves as participants in
the trust arrangement and authorized Mr. Izen to represent the
Pago and McKenzie Trusts. Petitioners further argue that because
respondent never challenged the validity of Forms 56 and Forms
2848 during the audit, or at any other proceeding, respondent
should be estopped from asserting that Mr. Izen lacked authority
to file the petitions on behalf of the Pago and McKenzie Trusts.
Unless a petition is filed by the taxpayer or someone
lawfully authorized to act on behalf of the taxpayer, we are
without jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Fehrs v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). Petitioners have the
burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction by
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011