- 6 - attorney to act on behalf of that person.3 This is a factual question to be decided according to common law principles of agency. Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 369-372 (1985); Casey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-672. Under common law rules of agency, authority may be granted by express statements or may be derived by implication from the principal's words or deeds. John Arnold Executrak Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-6 (citing 1 Restatement, Agency 2d, sec. 26 (1957)). In Casey v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the taxpayer's practice of routinely allowing her spouse to handle income tax matters and to open correspondence received from the Commissioner constituted an implied grant of authority to her spouse that allowed him to represent her with respect to their joint income tax matters. Furthermore, that grant of authority was sufficient to allow the taxpayer's spouse to hire an attorney to file a joint petition with this Court. We concluded that this Court had jurisdiction over the taxpayer even though she never signed the petition, because she impliedly authorized it. Petitioner is a well educated individual. She habitually had turned over the responsibility of dealing with her Federal 3 The appearance of an attorney on behalf of an individual creates a presumption that the attorney has the authority to represent that individual. Osborn v. United States Bank, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 830 (1824); Gray v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 639, 646 (1980).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011