Opinion
21728-22S
03-22-2024
CHUN B. CHAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge
This case was continued from the December 18, 2023, Dallas, Texas, Trial Session of the Court.
On February 20, 2024, the parties filed a Proposed Stipulated Decision, respondent filed a Status Report, and petitioner filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement. Upon review of the record in this case, it appears the notice of deficiency dated July 1, 2022, upon which this case is based, was sent to Eastern Castle International LLC. It is unclear from the record what Chun B. Chan's relationship to the company is. In the Corporate Disclosure Statement, Chun B. Chan's name was included as both the name of the filer and in the signature line of the filer's counsel or duly authorized representative.
Pursuant to Rule 60(a), "[a] case shall be brought by and in the name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the deficiency". In this case that is Eastern Castle International LLC, not Chun B. Chan. Rule 23(a)(3) states that "the signature of a petitioner corporation or unincorporated association must be in the name of the corporation or association by one of its active and authorized officers or members, as for example 'Mary Doe, Inc., by Richard Roe, President.'" There is not anything in the record that indicates Chun B. Chan is a member or officer of Eastern Castle International LLC and the Corporate Disclosure statement filed by Chun B. Chan does not include the name of Eastern Castle International LLC.
The Court has attempted to schedule a conference call with the parties, but those attempts have been unsuccessful.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that, on or before April 22, 2024, petitioner and respondent each shall show cause, in writing, why the Court, on its own motion, should not strike the Proposed Stipulated Decision, filed February 20, 2024, and change the caption of this case to "Eastern Castle International LLC, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".