- 12 -
petition or settle a case on her behalf. She denied signing a
joint tax return, and respondent asserted that the Court did not
have jurisdiction because she neither filed nor ratified the
petition filed by her husband. All parties agreed that
Mrs. Levitt did not authorize Mr. Levitt to file the petition in
the case on her behalf. In Levitt II, a motion to vacate a
decision for lack of jurisdiction was granted. The Court
concluded that the facts shown may have vested implied authority
in Mr. Levitt to file Federal income tax returns on behalf of
Mrs. Levitt but that "the nexus between that authority and the
authority to file a petition on her behalf in this Court is
simply not there."
In this case, however, the nexus missing in Levitt II is
present. That is, Ms. Levin was aware that a dispute over their
taxes had arisen and was repeatedly assured by Mr. Levin that it
was being taken care of. She thus implicitly authorized those
steps that reasonably followed the tax dispute through this
Court. We believe that the cases relied on by respondent,
although each factually specific, are analogous. See, e.g.,
Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623, 626-628 (1978); Takamoto v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-94; Stillman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-591; DiSanza v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-142,
affd. without published opinion 9 F.3d 1538 (2d Cir. 1993); John
Arnold Executrak Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011