Opinion
27147-21
03-30-2022
DANA B. BUMGARDNER & CYNTHIA T. BUMGARDNER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
MAURICE B. FOLEY CHIEF JUDGE
The petition filed to commence this case was not properly executed because it does not bear the original signature of petitioners or the original signature of a practitioner admitted to practice before the Tax Court, as required by the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Instead, the petition had been submitted by counsel Emily H. Leazer, but had no signature for counsel and no signature for petitioners. Counsel therefore was not treated as having entered an appearance in this matter and the petition was considered to be pro se. Accordingly, the Court by Order served November 3, 2021, directed petitioners to file a Ratification of Petition ratifying the initial petition with petitioners' signature. Petitioners have not complied with the Court's Order.
Subsequently, on November 5, 2021, an entry of appearance was filed in this matter by Emily H. Leazer, and counsel has since been treated as petitioners' representative for purposes of this case. However, a jurisdictional problem remains. Because this case was initially considered as filed pro se, the signature of counsel on the entry of appearance is insufficient to ratify the initial petition.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the time within which petitioners shall file a ratification of petition, bearing their original signatures (preferably in blue ink), is extended to April 14, 2022. If no such ratification of petition is received by April 14, 2022, the Court may dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners should note that the ratification of petition may not be filed electronically.