Opinion
12960-22
07-20-2022
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 25, 2022, correspondence from Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder was filed as a petition to commence the above-docketed case. Although that document was signed only by Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder, it indicated dispute of an attached notice of deficiency for taxable year 2018 issued to Jack Robert Swan. Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder had also indicated that Jack Robert Swan was deceased and that the petition was being filed on his behalf.
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, nor is reliance on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 56, Notice of Fiduciary Relationship, absent court appointment. While such may suffice before the IRS, it is not adequate before the Tax Court, which is entirely separate from the IRS.
Subsequently, on June 24, 2022, Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder filed a report indicating that she had been appointed independent executrix for the Estate of Jack Robert Swan, Deceased, as reflected in attached Letters Testamentary, dated December 13, 2018, issued by the County Court for Midland County, Texas.
Accordingly, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the "Estate of Jack Robert Swan, Deceased, Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder, Independent Executrix" is substituted for "Jack Robert Swan, Deceased" as the party petitioner in this proceeding. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read "Estate of Jack Robert Swan, Deceased, Stacy Leigh Swan Schroeder, Independent Executrix, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent."