- 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