- 15 -
at 441. Ratification requires a showing of proper authorization
by the signing party to act on behalf of the nonsigning party.
Id.
When a petition is filed by an attorney on behalf of a
taxpayer, the question is whether that taxpayer authorized the
attorney to act on his or her behalf. This is a factual question
to be decided based on 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, this Court 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. That grant of authority was sufficient
to allow the taxpayer's spouse to hire an attorney to file a
joint petition with this Court. This Court held that it had
jurisdiction over the taxpayer even though she never signed the
petition because she impliedly authorized it through her spouse.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011