Opinion
28073-21
02-07-2022
Esther J. Bailey, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On August 12, 2021, a petition was filed commencing this case. That petition does not bear petitioner's original signature or the original signature of counsel admitted to practice before the Tax Court, as required by the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The petition bears the signature of Steve Baily, who is petitioner's son (Mr. Bailey). It is well settled that, 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. 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. Although the Court does not recognize powers of attorney, may be available to permit someone to act on behalf of petitioner in this Tax Court case. The Court has prepared Q&A's on the subject "Representing a Taxpayer Before the U.S. Tax Court. A copy of these Q&A's are attached to this order.
As possibly relevant in this case, however, 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. An incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed legal representative may act by a next friend. 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 that (1) petitioner is incompetent and cannot prosecute a case without assistance, (2) the person seeking to be recognized as next friend for petitioner will represent petitioner's best interests, and (3) the person seeking to be recognized as next friend has a significant relationship with petitioner. A doctor's letter regarding petitioner's disability and inability to conduct petitioner's own business and financial affairs should also be attached to a motion to be recognized as next friend. Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that, on or before March 22, 2022 petitioner shall file a proper ratification of petition (see form attached) bearing her original signature (a "wet ink" signature, not a photocopy). It is further
ORDERED that, if petitioner is unable to file a ratification of petition, Steve Bailey shall file either a Response to this Order or a motion to be recognized as petitioner's next friend. If filing a response, Mr. Bailey shall advise the Court as to (a) whether petitioner is an incompetent person, (b) whether petitioner has a duly appointed legal representative, such as a guardian, conservator, or other similar fiduciary, and if not (c) whether Mr. Bailey or another individual intends to file an appropriate motion to have the Court recognize someone as next friend for petitioner. If filing a motion to be recognized as next friend for petitioner, any such motion shall include the required information discussed above. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to the copy of this Order the Court's Q&As on the subject "Representing a Taxpayer Before the U.S. Tax Court". It is further
ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Steve Bailey at the address listed for him in the petition.