Opinion
3177-23
06-14-2023
SALMAN I. SANDHU & RAKHSHINDA SANDHU, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On February 3, 2023, the Court filed the petition to commence this case. The petition was not properly executed in that it did not bear the original signatures of petitioners or of a practitioner admitted and recognized to practice before the Tax Court, as required by the Rule 23(a)(3), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioners' non-attorney representative who is not admitted to practice before this Court signed the petition on petitioners' behalf.
On April 18, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed by the proper parties.
By Order served April 23, 2023, the Court directed petitioners to ratify the petition. On June 13, 2023, petitioners filed a Ratification of Petition that bears their original signatures.
In pertinent 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." That Rule 60(a) provision was adopted from Rule 17(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is denied.