- 10 -
temporary regulation for a consent executed prior to the
regulation’s issuance was misplaced. We held that the regulation
would not invalidate prior authority given to execute a consent
signed by all persons who were general partners at any time
during the effective year or years of the authorization.
Petitioner relies on the temporary regulation because no writing
existed here.
It was also noted in Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra at 242-243, and Cambridge Research v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 287, 295 (1991), that the regulation’s
specific requirements for authorizing a person to execute a
consent are not mandatory. More significantly, respondent would
not have been informed by such notification, as set forth in the
regulation, because that regulatory requirement did not exist at
the time the consent in question was executed by Costello.
Respondent does not address the temporary regulation.
Instead, respondent relies on State of Washington statutory
provisions for her argument that Costello, as a general partner,
was capable of binding Cascade to the agreement to extend the
assessment period. In particular, respondent relies on Wash.
Rev. Code section 25.04.090, which, in pertinent part, provides:
Partner agent of partnership as to partnership
business.
(1) Every partner is an agent of the partnership
for the purpose of its business, and the act of every
partner, including the execution in the partnership
name of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011