2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-7-2006 

# V an D e B e rg v

. C ommi s sione r IRS P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1569

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V a n D e Be rg v

. C ommi s sione r I RS " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1290. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1290NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1569

__________________________________ S T E P H E N M . V A N D E B E R G (T rust), A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I S S I ONE R O F I NT E RN AL RE VE NUE

___________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es T ax C o u rt

( T . C . N o. 17072- 04) T ax C our tJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erJ . Panut hos

______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober3, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, M CK EE AN D A LDI SERT, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 7, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM O n J une 15, 2004, t he C om m i s s i onerof I nt ernal R evenue i s s ued a not i ce of defi ci encyt o St ephen M . V an D e B er g det erm i ni ng t hathe had a t ax def i ci encyfort he 2 0 0 2 t a x y e a r . On S e p t e mb e r9 , 2 0 0 4 , Va n De Be r g , a c t i n g o n b e h a l f o f “ S T E P HE N M V A N D E B E R G (T ru s t) ,” f ile d a T a x C o u rt p e titio n f o r r e d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e d e f ic ie n c y .Al l d o c u me n t s f i l e d wi t h t h i s Co u r th a v e b e e n s i g n e d o n b e h a l f o f S T E VE N M 1 V A N D E B E R G ( T rus t ) byV an D e B er g as t he trus t ee f ort he Trus t , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, t he not i ce of

appea l , m ot i on t o amend cas e ca pt i on, m ot i on t o corr ectt r ans cr i pt , i nfor m al br i ef, and r epl ybr i ef. 2 I n t he pet i t i on, V an D e B er g al l eged thatt he i ncome r efe r ence d i n t he not i ce of t he d ef ici en cyw as n o t t ax ab le t o h im , b u t r athe r w as a ttri b u table to th e T rust. V an D e B erg fur t heral l eged thatt he Trus thad pr oper l yfi l ed a Form 1041 fort he 2002 t ax y earand t hatt he not i ce of

defi ci encyi s s ued t o hi m as an i ndi vi dual w as “voi d on i t s fac e. ” A ta hea r i ng hel d befor e the Tax C our ton D ece m ber15, 2004, t he C om m i s s i oner or al l ym oved t o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Speci fi cal l y , t he C o m m iss io n e r a rg u e d th a t th e n o tice o f d e f icie n c yh a d b e e n iss u e d to a n in d iv id u a l, St ephen M . V an D e B er g, and ther efor e, t he Trus tw as nott he pr operpar t yt o fi l e the pet i t i on forr edet erm i nat i on of def i ci ency . V an D e B er g appea r ed att he D ece m ber15 hear i ng as t rus t ee on be hal f of the Trus t , and i ns i s t ed thatt he not i ce of defi ci encyhad been i s s ued t o t he Trus t . A ft erfi ndi ng no evi dence t hatt he C om m i s s i onerhad d eterm ined a d ef

ici en cyag ains t th e T rust, the T ax C o u rtg ran ted th e C o m m issi o n er’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o T ax C our tR ul e 60( a) on J anuary5, 2005. T hi s appea l byST E PH E N M V A N D E B E R G ( T rus t ) fol l ow ed. 1 O n J ul y20, 2005, t hi s C our tadvi s ed V an D e B er g byl et t ert hatbeca us e he i s not a n a t t o r n e yd u l ya d mi t t e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w h e c o u l d n o tr e p r e s e n tS T E P HE N M VAN DE B E R G ( T rus t ) befor e thi s C our t . V an D e B er g w as advi s ed thathi s appea l coul d be3

di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o t i m el ypr os ecut e under3d C i r . L A R M i s c. 107. 2 i f a l i cens ed a tto rn e yd id n o t e n te r a n a p p e a ra n c e o n b e h a lf o f S T E P H E N M V A N D E B E R G (T ru s t) . V an D e B er g r es ponded t o t he J ul y20 l et t erw i t h a l et t erof hi s ow n ar gui ng t hathe sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to re p re se n t S T E P H E N M V A N D E B E R G (T ru st) p ro se in th is a p p e a l. “I thas been the l aw fort he bett erpar tof tw o centur i es . . . t hata corpor at i on m ay appea ri n t he fe der al cour t s onl yt hr ough l i cens ed couns el . A s t he court s have r ecogni zed, t he r at i onal e fort hatrul e appl i es equal l yt o al l ar t i fi ci al ent i t i es . ” R ow l and v. C al i forni a M en’ s C ol ony , 506 U . S. 194, 201- 02 ( 1993) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. C oci ver a, 104 F. 3d 566 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ; Si m br aw , I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 367 F. 2d 373 ( 3d C i r. 19 66 ); H arr i son v . W ahatoy as, L . L . C . , 25 3 F . 3d 55 2, 55 6 (10 C i r. 20 01 ) ( “A s a gener al m at t er , a corpor at i on orot herbus i nes s ent i t ycan onl yappea ri n cour tt hr ough an at t or neyand nota non- at t or neycorpor at e off i cerappea r i ng pr o s e. ”) . T hus , a non- l aw y er t rus t ee, s uch as V an D e B er g, m aynotr epr es enta trus tpr o s e bef or e thi s C our t . See K n o ef ler v. U n it ed B an k o f B ism arc k , 2 0 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 4 8 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (“A n o n law y er, s u c h a s th e s e p u rp o rt e d ‘t ru s te e s p ro s e ’ h a s n o ri g h t to re p re s e n t a n o th e r e n tity, i.e ., a t rust , i n a co urtof the U nit ed S t at es”) ; see al so C . E . P op e E qu i t yT rustv. U nit ed S t at es, 818 F. 2d 696, 697 ( 9t h C i r . 1987) ( hol di ng t hata pr o s e l i t i gant , w ho had fi l ed an a ct i on as t rus t ee on be hal f of a t rus t , “ha[ d] no author i t yt o appea ras an att or neyforot her s t han h i ms e l f ” ) . Va n De Be r g ’ s a r g u me n t s t o t h e c o n t r a rya r e u n a v a i l i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we4

w i l l di s m i s s t he appe al forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e bec aus e V an D e B er g has notcompl i ed w i t h ourdi r ect i ve t o r et ai n couns el forST E PH E N M V A N D E B E R G ( T rus t ) . T he m o ti o n s to a m en d ca se c ap ti o n an d co rrect th e tran script fro m the 1 2 /15 /04 T ax C o u rt m ot i on hear i ng ar e thus deni ed. E v en if w e w ere to rea ch the m erit s o f th e a p p ea l, w e w o u ld af firm the T ax C o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e p e titio n f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . P u rs u a n t to T a x C o u rt R u le 6 0 (a ), a pet i t i on forr edet erm i nat i on of def i ci encym us tbe fi l ed byt he per s on agai ns tw hom t he C o m m iss io n e r d e ter m in e d th e d e f icie n c y , o r so m e o n e law f u llya u th o riz e d to a c t o n b e h a lf of thatper s on. R ul e 60( a) fur t herpr ovi des t hata pet i t i on t i m el yfi l ed s hal l notbe di s m i s s ed bec aus e i tw as fi l ed byan i m pr operpar t yunt i l a r eas onabl e t i m e has been al l ow ed forr at i fi cat i on byt he pr operpar t y . H er e, w e agr ee w i t h t he Tax C our tt hat S T E P H E N M V A N D E B E R G (T ru st), w h ich f iled th e p e tit io n , w a s n o t th e p ro p e r p a rty i n t he under l y i ng act i on. T her efor e, t he Tax C our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng t he pet i t i on forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on aft erhavi ng fi r s tal l ow ed V an D e B er g an oppor tuni t yt o r at i fyt he p e titio n .