- 16 -
Under respondent’s interpretation of Rule 24(b), a
corporate officer can represent the corporation only if the
officer is specifically authorized by State law to
represent the corporation in litigation conducted in the
courts of that State. This would be a contraction of the
former Rule, not an expansion.
Contrary to respondent’s interpretation, Rule 24(b)
allows an “authorized officer” of a corporation, such as
Mr. Asbury, to represent the corporation in this Court
“without counsel”. This is an exception to the usual rule
in Federal courts under which corporations are required to
be represented in court by a duly licensed attorney. See,
e.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
Counsel, 506 U.S. 194, 202-203 (1993). Rule 24(b) does not
require an officer to be specifically permitted to
represent the corporation in State court. See House v.
Commissioner, 24 Fed. Appx. 608, 609 (7th Cir. 2001) (“At
trial House proceeded pro se and also elected to appear on
JJH’s [Joseph J. House, Inc.’s] behalf, as the tax court
rules permit him to do, see Tax Court Rule 24(b).”), affg.
T.C. Memo. 2000-22 (Illinois corporation); People Place
Auto Hand Carwash, LLC v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 359, 360
n.2 (2006) (Tennessee limited liability company); WFO Corp.
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-186 (Ohio 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