- 16 -
(10th Cir. 1971); Lawrence v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 713 (1957),
revd. on other grounds 258 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1958). The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not addressed this
specific question and, accordingly, it is not necessary to
analyze whether the consent was properly executed under any other
theory.
Additionally, the circumstances here are reminiscent of
those we considered in Mishawaka Properties v. Commissioner, 100
T.C. 353 (1993) (Mishawaka). In Mishawaka, a TEFRA partnership
petition filed during the period designated for the TMP was
executed by a partner other than the TMP for that partnership.
Neither Mishawaka Properties Co.'s partners nor respondent
designated a TMP. About 4 years after the petition was filed and
after pretrial and test case activity, Mishawaka Properties Co.'s
partners moved to dismiss because the petition was filed by a
partner other than a TMP.
Relying on Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623 (1978), we
held that the Mishawaka Properties Co. partners implicitly
adopted and/or ratified the filing of the petition by knowingly
allowing their interests to be represented before the Internal
Revenue Service and before this Court. In part, our holding
relied on California cases providing that
“A purported agent's act may be adopted expressly or it
may be adopted by implication based on conduct of the
purported principal from which an intention to consent
to or adopt the act may be fairly inferred, including
conduct which is 'inconsistent with any reasonable
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