Brooks v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

23 Citing cases

  1. Holt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    67 T.C. 829 (U.S.T.C. 1977)   Cited 18 times

    Such affidavit was signed by both parties. In John L. Brooks, 63 T.C. 709 (1975), the facts were essentially the same, with one exception. In Brooks, the original document which was filed as a petition bore a caption in the joint names of the parties.

  2. Fears Drive Henry 58, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13235-21 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 5, 2023)

    [I]n a limited line of cases, this court has permitted the perfection of "imperfect petitions." See Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829 (1977); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709 (1975); Carstenson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 542 (1972). Under the principle of ratification, an imperfect petition in a TEFRA proceeding has been perfected by the filing of an amended petition if there is evidence that a person qualified to file the petition authorized or consented to the filing of the petition by the improper party.

  3. Fears Drive Henry 58, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13235-21 (U.S.T.C. Jul. 26, 2023)

    See Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829 (1977); Brooks v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 63 T.C. 709 (1975); Carstenson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 542 (1972).

  4. Eiges v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    101 T.C. 61 (U.S.T.C. 1993)

    Rule 34(a)(1). “The dismissal of a petition for failure to satisfy applicable requirements depends on the nature of the defect, and therefore is put in the contingent ‘may’ rather than the mandatory ‘shall’ ”. Explanatory Note to Rule 34(a), 60 T.C. 1084; Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 711 (1975). Rule 60(a)(1) provides that a case shall be brought by and in the name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the deficiency (in the case of a notice of deficiency) or liability (in the case of a notice of liability), or by and with the full descriptive name of the fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of such person.

  5. Eiges v. Comm'r

    101 T.C. 61 (U.S.T.C. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    "The dismissal of a petition for failure to satisfy applicable requirements depends on the nature of the defect, and therefore is put in the contingent `may' rather than the mandatory `shall'". Explanatory Note to Rule 34(a), 60 T.C. 1084; Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 711 (1975). Rule 60(a)(1) provides that a case shall be brought by and in the name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the deficiency (in the case of a notice of deficiency) or liability (in the case of a notice of liability), or by and with the full descriptive name of the fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of such person.

  6. Levitt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    97 T.C. 30 (U.S.T.C. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    Where a joint notice of deficiency is issued and only one spouse signs the petition, in order for us to have jurisdiction over the nonsigning spouse, the nonsigning spouse must ratify the petition and must intend to become a party to that case. Abeles v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 103, 108 (1988); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 716 (1975). See also Rule 60(a)(1).

  7. Gleeson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 14008-23S (U.S.T.C. May. 21, 2024)

    ; Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-16 (1975).

  8. Gleeson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 14008-23S (U.S.T.C. Mar. 12, 2024)

    See 60 T.C. 1094; see also, e.g., Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829 (1977) (concluding that "Since the facts of this case establish to our satisfaction that Ernest B. Holt was acting for both himself and Leslie L. Holt in sending the letter which was filed herein as the timely imperfect petition, we will deny the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Leslie L. Holt and to change the caption."); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-16 (1975).

  9. Sandhu v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 3177-23 (U.S.T.C. Jun. 14, 2023)

    The Note accompanying Rule 60(a) elaborates that "Where the intention is to file a petition on behalf of a party, the scope of this provision permits correction of errors as to the proper party or his identity made in a petition otherwise timely and correct." See 60 T.C. 1094, See, for e.g., Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829, 833 (1977) (concluding that "Since the facts of this case establish to our satisfaction that Ernest B. Holt was acting both for himself and Leslie L. Holt in sending the letter which was filed herein as the timely imperfect petition, we will deny the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Leslie L. Holt and to change the caption"); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-716 (1975). Accordingly, the Court will deny respondent's motion to dismiss.

  10. Estate of Richardson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 13577-22S (U.S.T.C. Feb. 28, 2023)

    elaborates that "Where the intention is to file a petition on behalf of a party, the scope of this provision permits correction of errors as to the proper party or his identity made in a petition otherwise timely and correct." See 60 T.C. 1094, See, for e.g., Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829, 833 (1977) (concluding that "Since the facts of this case establish to our satisfaction that Ernest B. Holt was acting both for himself and Leslie L. Holt in sending the letter which was filed herein as the timely imperfect petition, we will deny the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Leslie L. Holt and to change the caption"); Brooks v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-716 (1975). Accordingly, the Court will deny respondent's motion to dismiss.