Opinion
17204-22
08-23-2022
JOSEPH CARLISLE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On July 22, 2022, the Petition to commence this case was filed on behalf of Mary Carlisle by Joseph Carlisle. Mr. Carlisle indicates that Ms. Carlisle needs assistance to prosecute this case, and that he holds a power of attorney for her.
Unless the petition is filed by the taxpayer, or by someone lawfully authorized to act on the taxpayer's behalf, the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction as to that taxpayer. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348-349 (1975). The Tax Court, unlike the Internal Revenue Service, does not recognize powers of attorney. However, as relevant here, Rule 60(d) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that whenever an incompetent person has a legal representative, such as a guardian, conservator, or other similar fiduciary, that representative may prosecute a case in this Court on behalf of the incompetent person.
Alternatively, an incompetent or incapacitated person who does not have a duly appointed legal representative may act by a next friend. See Campos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-193. In that connection, an appropriate motion to be recognized as next friend may be filed. Any such motion should set forth (1) that petitioner is incompetent and cannot prosecute a case without assistance, (2) that the person seeking to be recognized as next friend for petitioner will represent petitioner's best interests, and (3) that the person seeking to be recognized as next friend has a significant relationship with petitioner. A letter from a doctor or other comparable health care professional regarding petitioner's disability and inability to conduct petitioner's own business and financial affairs should also be attached to any motion to be recognized as next friend.
Review of the record shows that this case has been incorrectly captioned, and the Court will amend the caption accordingly. However, the record does not establish that Mr. Carlisle has been duly appointed as Ms. Carlisle's legal representative by a court of competent jurisdiction, and he has not filed a motion to be recognized as next friend. Consequently, the Court cannot recognize Mr. Carlisle as next friend for Ms. Carlisle at this time. However, we will provide Mr. Carlisle an opportunity to file such a motion as set forth below.
On August 22, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read: "Mary Carlisle, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent." It is further
ORDERED that, on or before September 22, 2022, Joseph Carlisle may file an appropriate motion to be recognized as next friend for petitioner Mary Carlisle, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before October 7, 2022, petitioner Mary Carlisle shall file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the granting of the Motion to Dismiss. It is further
ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Joseph Carlisle at the mailing address listed for him in the Petition.