Hoj v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 48577.
| Citation | 26 T.C. 1074 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48577. |
| Parties | SOREN S. HOJ AND CAROLINE HOJ, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | United States Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
H. Howard Jonesi, Esq., for the petitioners.
Andrew Kopperud, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.
JURISDICTION— PETITION— SIGNINGS AND VERIFICATION BY TAXPAYER.— The original petition timely filed was not signed by the taxpayers or counsel and was not verified by the taxpayers, but was signed and verified by one who described himself as agent, and the requirements of Rule 7(h) in regard to verification by someone other than the taxpayers were not complied with in any particular. The defects of the petition were called to the attention of the taxpayers by an order to show cause but were not remedied. The proceeding was then dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Commissioner determined deficiencies and additions to the tax as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦Addition under¦Addition under¦Addition under¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦Year¦Income tax¦sec. 294(d)(1)¦sec. 294(d)(2)¦sec. 291 ¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦(A) ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦1949¦$1,043.82 ¦$132.00 ¦$79.20 ¦$330.01 ¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦1950¦4,614.58 ¦828.96 ¦497.37 ¦ ¦
+----+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
The notice of deficiency was mailed on February 19, 1953, to ‘Mr. Soren S. Hoj and Mrs. Caroline Hoj, Husband and Wife, 224 South B Street, Monmouth, Illinois.’ A petition was filed on May 19, 1953. That petition was both signed and verified by Charles R. Carpenter, who described himself as ‘agent or attorney in fact’ for the petitioners. An answer was filed. The parties were notified on July 6, 1954, that the proceeding would be heard on the merits in Chicago, Illinois, on October 4, 1954. H. Howard Jonesi entered his appearance for the petitioners on October 6, 1954, and when the case was called on the Chicago calendar it was submitted on a stipulation of facts. The Court discovered, when it took up the case for decision, that there was serious question of its jurisdiction to decide the case and also serious question as to whether the proceeding should not be dismissed for failure properly to prosecute.
An order to show cause was issued on July 26, 1956, in which the Court called attention to its Rule 7 requiring that a petition be signed either by the petitioner or by his counsel and also requiring a verification by the petitioner, except that where the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Commissioner
...[Dec. 35,318], 70 T.C. 623, 626-629 (1978); Carstenson v. Commissioner [Dec. 31,230], 57 T.C. 542 (1972); Hoj v. Commissioner [Dec. 21,935], 26 T.C. 1074 (1956). Hildreth had an unconditional power of attorney, as an attorney-in-fact, to represent and act on petitioner's behalf. The power o......
-
Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...be a nullity, and accordingly, on our own motion, we hold that we have no jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.) Likewise, in Hoj v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 1074, 1076 (1956), the Court concluded that “the Tax Court would have no jurisdiction to bind the petitioners by any decision which it might......
-
Trans World Travel v. Commissioner, Docket No. 12390-96.
...jurisdiction to bind petitioner because the petition was filed without proper authorization from petitioner. See Hoj v. Commissioner [Dec. 21,935], 26 T.C. 1074 (1956). Whether the filing of the petition was authorized or later ratified by petitioner is a question of fact to be determined b......
-
Crawford v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Arnett)
...was made, it would not be a defect which would affect our jurisdiction. Gibson Amusement Co., 22 B.T.A. 1212. The case of Soren S. Hoj, 26 T.C. 1074, which deals with another part of Rule 7 relating to a verification of a petition by an agent when the petitioner is outside the United States......