- 9 -
An agreement entered into by an unauthorized act of an agent
of the United States is null and void. "[T]he United States is
not bound by the unauthorized acts of its agents, nor is it
estopped to assert lack of authority as a defense." Dorl v.
Commissioner, 507 F.2d 406, 407 (2d Cir. 1974), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1973-145. The closing agreement in this case was
executed by an Associate Chief of Appeals. Since the case was
already docketed in the Tax Court when the closing agreement was
signed, the Associate Chief of Appeals here did not have
authority to sign the closing agreement on behalf of the
Commissioner. Thus, the closing agreement is void. Dorl v.
Commissioner, supra at 407; Webb v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-549.
Both Petitioners' Response to Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment and petitioners' motion for leave to amend are
based on the closing agreement. Both raise the same point: That
because of the closing agreement, the Court lacks jurisdiction
pursuant to section 7121 and must dismiss the case. Since the
closing agreement is void, these arguments must fail.4
4 Even if the response and the motion for leave to amend are
considered separately, petitioners' motion for leave to amend
should be denied in any event. Rule 41(a) allows a party to
amend its petition within 30 days after it is served or by leave
of the Court if "justice so requires". We note that 10 years
have passed since the original petition was filed, and 8 years
have passed since petitioners signed the closing agreement
admitting their liability for the taxes involved here. Granting
petitioners' motion might have the anomalous result of relieving
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011