- 15 -
Respondent cites no authority in support of this
interpretation of Rule 24(b).
The Explanatory Note that accompanied the promulgation
of Rule 24(b) states as follows:
Par. (b) is concerned with pro se
appearances, and is the counterpart of present
T.C. Rule 3. However, Par. (b) states a rule,
not expressed in T.C. Rule 3, that a party is
deemed to appear for himself in the absence of
appearance by counsel. In such event, the Clerk
can make service of papers by directing them by
mail to the party, foreclosing any claim of
failure to serve counsel. Par. (b) goes beyond
T.C. Rule 3 in specifying the information
required of the pro se party, and expands the
provision on the persons who may act in a
representative capacity for a pro se party. [60
T.C. 1078.]
Thus, among other things, Rule 24(b) was intended to expand
the scope of former Rule 3, its counterpart, regarding the
persons who could act in a representative capacity for a
pro se party. Former Rule 3 provided in part as follows:
“A taxpayer corporation may be represented by a bona fide
officer of the corporation upon permission granted, in its
discretion, by the Court or the Division sitting.” Thus,
under former Rule 3, an officer of a corporation could
represent the corporation in this Court, but the officer
was required to obtain the permission of the Court to do
so. Rule 24(b) expanded the scope of former Rule 3 by
permitting a corporation to be represented in this Court
“by an authorized officer of the corporation”.
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