Opinion
18757-22
01-12-2023
MARVIN A. MATHIS, DECEASED, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition filed on August 15, 2022, does not bear the original signature of petitioner or the signature of a practitioner admitted to practice before the Tax Court, as required by the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The petition indicates that petitioner died on July 29, 2021, and was filed by John Tunney. On October 19, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent states in the motion that (1) a notice of deficiency dated May 9, 2022, was issued to petitioner; (2) the petition was filed and signed on behalf of petitioner by John Tunney, who is not a fiduciary or personal representative of the Estate of Marvin Mathis; and (3) the personal representative for the Estate of Marvin Mathis is Hans G. Mathis, who does not object to the granting of the motion. Respondent attached to his motion Letters of Administration issued by the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Florida, appointing Hans G. Mathis as personal representative for the Estate of Marvin A. Mathis.
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, this Court is without jurisdiction. Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348-349(1975). However, in relevant part, Tax Court Rule 60(a) provides that "A case timely brought shall not be dismissed on the ground that it is not properly brought on behalf of a party until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification by such party of the bringing of the case; and such ratification shall have the same effect as if the case had been properly brought by such party." A decedent's estate may be represented by someone acting in fiduciary capacity, such as an executor, administrator, or personal representative of the decedent's estate. It appears that Mr. Tunney lacks the capacity to prosecute this case in the Tax Court.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.