- 15 -
consent. Costello was requested by respondent’s agents to notify
the other partners of action taken by respondent. There is no
question that Costello, Walsh, and the other partners were aware
that respondent was acting on Costello’s execution of documents,
including the consent and correspondence with respondent. In
addition, Costello signed the partnership return for the year in
question. We also note that Walsh, Costello, and the other 19
partners of Cascade were all partners in a nationally known firm
of certified public accountants that, among other matters,
specializes in Federal taxation. Finally, it is clear that
respondent did not know that Costello was not the appointed or
qualified TMP and that Costello's representations were reasonably
relied on to respondent's substantial detriment. Under these
circumstances, we hold that Cascade is estopped to deny
Costello’s authority to execute a consent binding the partnership
to an extension of the period for assessment.
There is no need to express our agreement or disagreement
with the rationale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. This is so because the facts in this case are
distinguishable from the facts in Medical & Business Facilities,
Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra, as to the estoppel issue. Moreover,
the partnership’s place of business was Washington State, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would be the
appropriate appellate venue. See sec. 7482(b)(1)(E); Golsen v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985
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