Opinion
3822-22S
04-10-2023
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On April 5, 2023, the Court received from the parties in the above-docketed matter a stipulated decision resolving this litigation. However, review of such decision in conjunction with the record herein raised questions as to the propriety of fiduciary jurisdiction in this case.
In general, Rule 60(a) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure directs that a case shall be brought by the individual against whom a deficiency or liability has been asserted or by a fiduciary legally authorized to institute a case on behalf of such person. The burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction is on the taxpayer, and unless the petition is filed by the taxpayer or someone lawfully authorized to act on his or her behalf, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). Merely being named executor in a will is not sufficient.
Given the foregoing, this matter now raises the jurisdictional question of whether the case, insofar as it may purport to be an appeal by or on behalf of Nina Chalker Rooks, Deceased, or her estate, was filed by a fiduciary or personal representative duly appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction and legally entitled to institute a case on behalf of Nina Chalker Rooks, Deceased, or her estate.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before May 8, 2023, William Steve Rooks shall file a report advising whether William Steve Rooks or any other person has been duly appointed the executor, personal representative, or fiduciary for the Estate of Nina Chalker Rooks, Deceased, by a court of competent jurisdiction, attaching thereto the corresponding letters of administration or letters testamentary. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the instant case as to Nina Chalker Rooks, Deceased, or other appropriate action by this Court.