- 14 - administratively dissolved. Since petitioner was dissolved, Mr. Asbury has continued as petitioner’s only officer and director, by operation of Florida law, and he retains the authority to act on petitioner’s behalf to wind up and liquidate petitioner’s business and affairs. See Fla. Stat. Ann. secs. 607.1405, 607.1421. As petitioner’s only officer or director after the dissolution, Mr. Asbury is the only person who can act on petitioner’s behalf. Accordingly, he is the only person who could have the authority to approve the filing of the instant petition for redetermination on petitioner’s behalf. See Bared & Cobo Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Starvest U.S., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. We find that Mr. Asbury had the authority to sign the petition on petitioner’s behalf. We further find that he is an “authorized officer” for purposes of Rule 24(b). Respondent’s motion argues that Mr. Asbury cannot appear on petitioner’s behalf in this Court without counsel, as an “authorized officer” of petitioner within the meaning of Rule 24(b). According to respondent, an officer of a Florida corporation is not authorized by Rule 24(b) to represent the corporation in this Court unless the officer is also an attorney who can represent the corporation before the courts of the State of Florida.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