Opinion
17580-21S
10-20-2022
DIANE K. SATHER & MIKE M. SATHER, DECEASED, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On May 17, 2021, correspondence from Diane K. Sather was filed as a petition to commence the above-docketed case. Although that document was signed only by Diane K. Sather, it indicated dispute of an attached notice of deficiency for taxable year 2018 issued to Diane K. Sather and Mike M. Sather, Deceased. In accordance therewith and to protect all potential parties, the case opened was captioned in the names of both Diane K. Sather and Mike M. Sather, Deceased.
Given that record, the matter raised the jurisdictional question of whether the case, insofar as it purported to be an appeal by or on behalf of Mike M. Sather, Deceased, or his estate, was executed or 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 Mike M. Sather, Deceased, or his estate. At that juncture, by Order served September 20, 2021, the Court directed Diane K. Sather to file a report on or before October 29, 2021, advising whether Diane K. Sather or any other person has been duly appointed the executor, personal representative, or fiduciary for the Estate of Mike M. Sather, Deceased, by a court of competent jurisdiction, attaching thereto the corresponding letters of administration or letters testamentary. To date, nothing further has been received from Diane K. Sather or any other individual.
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). In this connection, it should be noted that the Court, unlike the IRS, does not recognize powers of attorney as sufficient. Likewise, merely being named executor in a will is not sufficient.
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the foregoing and the record herein, it is
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Mike M. Sather, Deceased. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read "Diane K. Sather, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".