- 7 -
income tax matters to Mr. Takamoto. Petitioner trusted Mr.
Takamoto completely, and she did not even review the tax returns.
Petitioner knew that she received correspondence from the
Internal Revenue Service and allowed Mr. Takamoto to deal with
that matter as he would without question. This conduct impliedly
authorized Mr. Takamoto to represent petitioner with respect to
her Federal income tax matters. Mr. Takamoto acted within the
scope of this authority when he retained Mr. Farber to file a
petition with this Court. Mr. Farber acted pursuant to the
authority granted to him by Mr. Takamoto on Mr. Takamoto's and
petitioner's behalf when he filed the joint petition and
ultimately settled the case. "Even if [petitioner] was not aware
of the dispute with the IRS, her own admitted delegation of
authority to her husband cannot now be revoked because she is
unhappy with the outcome of her case. 'Deficiencies ex post do
not detract from authority ex ante.'" DiSanza v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-142, affd. without published opinion 9 F.3d 1538
(2d Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, based upon petitioner's version of the facts,
we conclude that this Court had jurisdiction over petitioner when
the stipulated decision was entered, and, therefore, petitioner's
motion will be denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011