                        T.C. Memo. 2001-279



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            NORTHSTATE TAX CONSULTANTS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5987-01.              Filed October 10, 2001.


     Mark E. Kent, for petitioner.1

     Daniel J. Parent, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     RUWE, Judge:   This case is before the Court on respondent’s

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.     Respondent bases his




     1
      As explained in the text, respondent challenges Mr. Kent’s
capacity to conduct litigation on behalf of petitioner. Our
tentative description of Mr. Kent as appearing for petitioner is
for convenience only.
                               - 2 -

motion on the ground that the petition was not filed by a proper

party under Rule 60(c).2

Background

     On February 5, 2001, respondent mailed a notice of

deficiency for the taxable years 1994 and 1995 to “Northstate Tax

Consultants Trust”.   On May 7, 2001, a petition in the name of

“Northstate Tax Consultants” was timely filed.    The petition was

signed by Mark E. Kent (Mr. Kent).     The notice of deficiency and

the petition both listed the same address in Redding, California,

as petitioner’s address.

     On July 26, 2001, respondent moved, pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 60(c), to dismiss this case for lack of

jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed by a

trustee authorized under California law to bring suit on behalf

of Northstate Tax Consultants Trust (NTCT).    In his motion,

respondent alleges that a Form 1041, U.S. Fiduciary Income Tax

Return, was filed with respondent in the name of “Northstate Tax

Consultants” for each of the taxable years 1994 and 1995.

Respondent contends that, before issuing the notice of

deficiency, he requested that copies of certain trust documents

be provided to him in order to establish the identity of the

trustees authorized to act on behalf of NTCT.    Respondent


     2
      All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
                               - 3 -

represents that he requested copies of trust instruments and

copies of trust documents appointing all trustees, but no trust

documents were provided to him.   Respondent attached a letter,

dated June 19, 2001, addressed to: “Northstate Tax Consultants,

Attn: Mark E. Kent”.   In the letter, respondent asked Mr. Kent to

provide certain trust documents in order for respondent to

determine whether Mr. Kent was authorized to represent NTCT

before this Court.   Respondent concluded his letter by stating

that if he did not receive the requested information within 30

days, then he would file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of

jurisdiction.   Respondent maintains that he has not received a

response to his request.

     On July 30, 2001, we directed petitioner to file a response

to respondent’s motion on or before August 30, 2001.   Petitioner

failed to file a response to respondent’s motion.

Discussion

     Rule 60(a) provides that a case shall be brought by and in

the name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined

the deficiency, or by and with the full descriptive name of the

fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of that person.

Rule 60(c) provides that “The capacity of a fiduciary or other

representative to litigate in the Court shall be determined in

accordance with the law of the jurisdiction from which such

person’s authority is derived.”   Petitioner bears the burden of
                               - 4 -

proving that this Court has jurisdiction.      Harold Patz Trust v.

Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 503 (1977); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65

T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Main-Hammond Land Trust v. Commissioner, 17

T.C. 942, 957 (1951), affd. 200 F.2d 308 (6th Cir. 1952).

     Petitioner failed to comply with our order requiring a

response to respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.   Petitioner has failed to present other evidence

showing that this Court has jurisdiction.   In the absence of any

evidence to support our jurisdiction, we hold that Mr. Kent does

not have the capacity under Rule 60(c) to litigate in this Court

on behalf of NTCT.   See Harold Patz Trust v. Commissioner, supra.


                                    An appropriate order will

                               be entered granting respondent’s

                               motion to dismiss for lack of

                               jurisdiction.
