- 6 -
corporation in this Court. According to respondent:
“Mr. Asbury cannot act in a representative capacity for
petitioner” because Florida law “does not grant authority
to a former officer to represent a dissolved entity, with
exceptions not applicable here.”
Petitioner bears the burden of establishing
affirmatively 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). Petitioner must establish that: (1) Respondent
issued to petitioner a valid notice of deficiency, and (2)
petitioner, or someone authorized to act on petitioner’s
behalf, filed a timely petition with the Court. See Rule
13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989);
Fehrs v. Commissioner, supra at 348. In order to meet this
burden, petitioner must establish that Mr. Asbury has
authority to act on petitioner’s behalf. See Natl. Comm.
to Secure Justice v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 839-840
(1957); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Commissioner, 22 B.T.A.
686, 700 (1931); cf. Scenic Wonders Gallery, LLC v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-64. If the petition is not
filed by petitioner, or by someone lawfully authorized to
act on petitioner’s behalf, then we are without
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011