- 12 -
laws of the State of Florida to litigate in this Court and
to seek redetermination of the subject notice of
deficiency.
Respondent’s position that this case should be
dismissed focuses on Mr. Asbury’s authority under State
law to act as petitioner’s representative. Respondent’s
position is that the case must be dismissed because
Mr. Asbury is not authorized under Florida law to act on
petitioner’s behalf. It appears that respondent challenges
Mr. Asbury’s authority both to approve the filing of the
instant petition as an officer of petitioner and to appear
in these proceedings as petitioner’s representative.
As we view it, the issues raised by respondent’s
motion are: (1) Whether Mr. Asbury is an active and
authorized officer of petitioner under Florida law who
properly acted on petitioner’s behalf in approving the
filing of the instant petition; and (2) whether Mr. Asbury
is an “authorized officer” within the meaning of that term
in Rule 24(b) who can represent petitioner in these
proceedings without counsel.
As to the first issue, respondent argues that Florida
law does not authorize “a former officer, director or
shareholder to represent a dissolved corporation in a
representative capacity.” Contrary to respondent’s
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